Yes, I know. But to send the flying monkeys after Naderites with death threats – “Vote Kerry or be branded a traitor!” – is just so Republican. And I, for one, consider myself sufficiently more principled than they are to stoop to their tactics. I’d like to think the rest of the Democratic Party would be the same way.
IMO, the proper way to get Naderites to vote for Kerry is to convince them with sound arguments, not threats and fist-shaking. I do not believe Nader supporters are so zealous in their devotion that they can’t be convinced to vote for Kerry for the greater good.
I submit Olentzero as evidence to the contrary, and I suspect he’s not alone. The lunatic fringe of the left and their leader would rather see the people of this country ground under the heel of Bush’s regime for four more years than have to compromise with those who share their goals but who are insufficiently correct on every principle. To them, no loaf is better than half a loaf. Mystifying, but there it is.
Despite his rather psychotic fixation on wealth and its distribution, he is a great champion of civil liberties. I think a lot of libertarians have reached the point — after so many years of conservatism (including Clinton) — of realizing that being allowed to keep (a paltry portion of) our money is not worth much if the Federal Gestapo is going to monitor, control, and redirect every aspect of how we spend, save, or invest it. And frankly, I don’t understand Gobear’s take on all this. If I were fighting for gay rights, I would support a candidate who would fight my fight. Don’t ask don’t tell cannot have been more insulting or debasing. And Kerry’s civil unions are a form of legal segregation, separate but equal. You can’t drink from the straight water fountain, but we’ll build you a separate one just for gays. Like any mainstream politician, he will do what is politically expedient. So he might not build one at all. It isn’t that Olentzero thinks no loaf is better than half a loaf; it’s that Olentzero realizes that no loaf is better than a poisoned loaf.
Hijack the party? Hijack the party?! Dude, Richard Nixon would be a liberal Democrat in today’s political climate. DOn’t talk to me about hijacking the party.
Half a poisoned loaf is better than burning the wheat field so no one gets to eat. If we want to continue the rather strained bread analogy. You say you’re basing your vote largely on civil liberties. Who as president do you think is more likely to act in support of civil liberties, Bush and his Attorney General, or Kerry? Who is more likely to appoint federal judges who will protect civil liberties, Bush who points to Antonin Scalia as his model for Supreme Court appointments, or Kerry? Who as president will oppose a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage, Bush who’s endorsed it, or Kerry? Who is more likely to work to remove DADT and pass ENDA? Bush whose administration has already attempted to roll back federal protections for gay workers (except now they’re denying it), or Kerry?
Is Kerry going to be perfect as President? No. Is he going to make compromises for the sake of political expedience? Yes. Is he, of the two people who can be elected in November, the better choice if you’re voting civil liberties? There’s no question. If for no other reason than the next president will probably get to name two or three SCOTUS justices, the stakes are too high, if you really care about civil liberties, to throw away your vote on someone who can’t win to make some point.
They’ve already burnt the wheat field. That’s why there’s nothing left but chaff. Why should I trust Kerry’s appointment for AG? Bush gave us John Asshole, but Clinton gave us Janet Waco.
Sorry, I don’t remember personally convincing 105 million people to stay home in 2000.
[quote]
If the Nader vote in Florida had gone to Gore
[ul]
[li]We would not be in Iraq[/ul][/li][/quote]
I would love to see you back that up with concrete evidence, you patronizingly smug fuckwit.
Actually, no I don’t. The Democrats are a bosses’ party just as much as the Republicans, and they’ll kill off real grassroots movements just as quickly. RFK promised the Freedom Riders they’d get tax-exempt status if they “stopped all that freedom-riding, sitting-in shit” when he was Attorney General. Why the hell would I want to vote for that sort of scumbag?
Gore lost Virginia by 220,200 votes, according to the FEC. Nader only got 59,398. So kindly shut the fuck up.
And you obviously either can’t or won’t inform this poor misguided soul as to the real differences between the Republicans and the Democrats; instead you’d rather heap more abuse and opprobrium. Way to win votes for your candidates, fuckknuckle.
It’s this inability to see the forest for the trees that leads people to place their hopes in the Democrats again and again only to see them dashed. Where’s Clinton’s universal healthcare plan? Where’s the equal and fair treatment of gays and lesbians he promised? As for what Kerry might do in office, it looks like he thinks further tax cuts for corporations are a good idea. And again, he wants to increase US troop presence in Iraq. How is that any different from Bush?
If the ballot box were a real source of power, we’d be hearing a lot more from Bernie Sanders these days. Where is he now? Presumably still somewhere in Congress, swamped by the tide of Republican and Democratic pressure on the issues of the day. We need independent grassroots organization and mobilization, not the constant routine of holding our breaths for change for four years and then holding our noses every election day. That’s not enough.
I’m just not convinced of that. The more I read about him and his politics, the more I just don’t see him being the friend of the working class he’s portrayed to be.
In this thread? Don’t be fucking ridiculous. I haven’t seen one iota of argument from you around the issue of the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans, just a pile of steaming “Bush’s victory is Olentzero’s fault” bullshit. No, to your credit, you haven’t been employing threats or shaking your fist, but that doesn’t automatically mean you’re using sound arguments, either.
If, on the other hand, there are indeed threads on this board where you have been employing sound and logical arguments on the subject, I’d be very interested in seeing them.
If Kerry’s such a champion of civil liberties, why in the hell did he vote for the PATRIOT Act in 2001? Turning around now and saying “Yeah, but Bush didn’t do it right” doesn’t tell me he’s now actually opposed to the Act - just that he’d implement it differently. Tell me again how I’m supposed to sleep soundly at night knowing that?
Then you’re not paying attention. Despite your skepticism, I am certain that the Democrats, flawed as they are, are closer to your goals than Bush is. You have some chance of traction with the Democrats in getting the progessive wing’s agenda through–you have ZERO chance with Bush in the White House. Given that, why would you do anything, like vote for a quixotic independent candidacy, that will aid your enemy’s reelection? Despite your skepticism, there are fundamental differences between the Democrats and the GOP.
I am not happy with Kerry. I dislike his positions on the Patriot Act, gay marriage, and the tax cuts to corporations you mentioned. But at least he is not asking for a federal amendment to the constitution to outlaw gay marriage. That alone makes him better than Bush. His Web site says that he wants to restrore environmental protections, rebuild our foreign alliances, and GET RID OF ASHCROFT (Belie me, I’d put stars, neon, and rainbow underlines on that one)–do you see no difference between Kerry and Bush? None at all?
And you might as well forget the verbal abuse (even if it’s a turn-on, Daddy)–because I know what a fun guy you are in person, it doesn’t have much of an effect.
Grassroots support AND voting are both necessary; NEITHER are sufficient. I am mystified why you’d willingly give up a bit of power to the Christian Coalition, why you insist on being their allies in the electoral scene. Don’t sit around for four years between voting – nobody’s saying to do that – but when you get your chance, don’t cooperate with Pat Robertson.
I never said Kerry was a friend to the working class; I simply said he won’t fuck the class over in the way Bush has. If you can show a pattern of evidence that Kerry has been equally bad to the working class as Bush has been, I’ll retract the comment.
But what about this: name some union leaders you admire, and look up their political positions. Unless you think the Wobblies are a bunch of kowtow-to-the-corporate-man stooges, I’m guessing you’ll find that these union leaders, who spend their days in the trenches and are at least as familiar with the Working Class as you are, are desperately working toward Kerry’s reelection.
But it isn’t mystifying, once you understand Olentzero’s politics. He’s a Marxist. Our existing political structure will have to be smashed. And a liberal Bourgeois like Kerry is just as much of a problem as a conservative Bourgeois like Bush. Liberalism is just as much of an enemy to Marxism as Conservatism. More, in fact. After all, if the proletarians aren’t being ground under the heels of the capitalist parasites, how will they learn they need to rise up and smash their oppressors? The worse, the better. Heighten the contradictions.
If, as you say, this “lunatic fringe” refuses to change their mind, then trying to browbeat them into your POV is a waste of energy, and makes you look petty in the process. I have no idea how Olentzero will vote in November, but I fully support his right to pull the lever (or punch the chad, or toss his vote into a Diebold-rigged machine) for whatever candidate he wants.
And quite frankly, if Kerry’s victory or defeat in November hinges solely on courting the Nader vote, then Kerry’s got more fundamental problems to worry about.
If, as you say, this “lunatic fringe” refuses to change their mind, then trying to browbeat them into your POV is a waste of energy, and makes you look petty in the process.
[quote]
You, Rjung, say this? After how many GD threads? Please, honey!
And how is explaining the ramifications of his action in any way restraining him from voting as he pleases?
It’s going to be a tight race, and if we learned anything from Florida in 2000, it’s that every vote counts.
OK, pick your term then. I don’t care. I wanted to say, “I know they’re far from pure.” You agree. Done.
And Nader’s done what about that in the past few decades?
No, seriously, what? I’m aware of a number of good things Nader has done, but getting the working class organized…missed that one.
I don’t see the workers voting for Nader; I see yuppies and college students doing so.
During the 1990s, the Dems pushed through two increases in the minimum wage, and nearly managed a third one in 2000. They at least tried to pass universal health coverage in 1994, and if Kerry gets elected, there’s a good chance they’ll try again. They’ve fought to preserve Social Security, which Bush would like to privatize (which, for the working class, means to gut). They’ve done what they could for the labor unions, but the main problem there is that the unions themselves have done a poor job in articulating their relevance in a 2000s world. Clinton increased taxes on the rich, and increased the Earned Income Tax Credit for working families at the lower end of the income scale. Republicans cut taxes, cut government services to the poor (and increasingly to the rest of us too), and leave the government stranded with piles of debt to make it harder for the government to actually help people for years to come.
I don’t care if someone is good for the country 'cos the state of the Union doesn’t matter to me. It’s the state of my class I’m worried about.
[/quote]
Well, OK: what narrow band of the US population is “your class”? And like it or not, if your ‘class’ isn’t big enough, then if you don’t think beyond it, you lose. If you can’t make people different from yourself see what’s in it for them, you’re always going to pile up glorious losses, but you’ll be pure, and the folks you’d like to help will remain unhelped.
And exactly how are you going to fight it in 2005-07 besides whatever failed in 2001-03?
Well, what are those issues? Kerry’s bound to be considerably closer to ‘your side’ of those issues than Bush. Bush is gonna keep cutting taxes on income from property, so the burden will fall on wage-earners. Bush is gonna do whatever he can to widen the pool of labor available to employers, to undercut workers and keep their wages low. I honestly don’t know what Kerry will do specifically, but he’s a liberal Democrat; I think we can look back at what the Dems did, and tried to do, during the 1990s, and expect that that gives us Kerry’s general direction, if not the specifics.
They have been known to help corporations, but they’ve also been known to fight to regulate them. It’s easier for them to do the latter when they’re in the White House and/or in a majority in Congress.
It’s even easier on top of that when they know they’re not dependent on the corporate interests for their cash flow. And you know what? The combination of McCain-Feingold, the Internet, and the example of Howard Dean have freed them from that. They’ve raised $100 million just this quarter, in contributions from individuals. Apparently they’re getting lots of $25 and $50 contributions over the Internet.
If the Dems win the White House and, with any luck, the Senate this time, they may just look around and realize, “Hey, we don’t need to kiss up to business anymore! We won without their help!” Because the lobbyists who used to play both sides of the aisle, have pretty much become an arm of the GOP now.
And speaking as a small-d democrat, all I can say to them is, thanks for setting us free. Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Three little letters:
F. D. R.
Well, for one thing, the right-wing disinformation campaign wouldn’t be able to work out of the White House, where the SCLM seems to print its every assertion without bothering to fact-check.
Well, politics is a continual struggle. But one step forward and one step back is better than one step back, and another step back, and another, ad infinitum. Meanwhile, how much has the Socialist Worker accomplished over the past 50 years, besides putting out a newspaper that almost nobody reads?
Who said there isn’t? Where would grassroots organizing happen these days? Dean blazed a trail, and just because he lost doesn’t mean nobody’s using that trail anymore. Oh no.
Well, does anybody have a good solution for Iraq, now that we’re already there? I mean, we can stay and try to actually help the Iraqis towards whatever form of democracy they can manage, at great cost to us. Or we can pull out and leave them to some combination of theocracy and civil war. It’s like already having cancer - none of the choices are particularly pleasant.
I’d stake my reputation on one thing: if Kerry gets elected, Chalabi’s gone, and most of those exiles with him. And whatever our involvement in Iraq, we’ll stop trying to run it for the benefit of US contractors.
Lessee, I’ve already mentioned the two parties’ vastly different approaches to taxation, Social Security, the minimum wage, and universal health care. The Dems at least give a decent try at protecting the environment, and adding to public lands; the GOP sees the environment as something to be cut down and drilled in, and figure that if you want to hike in the wilderness, then you ought to make a lot of money and buy a wilderness. Clean air? Clean water? Industry will surely give you those under ‘voluntary’ standards.
Want consumer protection? Don’t look to the GOP. The Dems had been trying to pass legislation banning ‘downer’ cows in the food supply for years; the GOP blocked it - until the mad cow was already out of the barn, and into our burgers.
Want equal rights for gays? OK, the Dems are cowering a bit on marriage, but they’ll at least support civil unions. But you know how the theocons of the GOP feel about gays.
Want an IRS that cracks down on big corporate tax cheats? Kerry does, Bush doesn’t. Bush looks on tax evasion by corporations and the rich as just one more tax cut, albeit under the table.
I’m sure I could add to the list, but my fingers are getting sore.
[/quote]
Actually, median earnings rose under Clinton, as did those in the lowest quintile. Clinton did some genuine good for working Americans. He might should have done more, but fact is, he did more for them than any President since LBJ.
Well, nobody else other than the Dems has done them a lick of good, including your boy Ralph. And Bush will do everything he can to hurt the interests of your class; he thinks of workers as simply a resource for his corporate buddies to exploit.
Your class does better with a Dem in the White House than with a Pubbie, especially in these times. And for once, we might elect a Dem President with negligible help from the corporate world. (Meanwhile, big names in the GOP are contributing heavily to Nader. I think we both know why.) I suggest that that might be an interesting development. If you want “the people versus the powerful”, the rhetoric’s not there like it was with Gore, but it’s happening on the ground.
rjung: “Whose side are you on?” was an old labor/leftie anthem, IIRC. I wasn’t trying to demonize Olentzero or any other Nader raiders; I was just making a reference that I assumed he’d recognize.
