On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, paul phillips wrote: > list is preoccupied with whether one per cent or two of the population > should vote for Nader rather than Kerry.
It is extremely educating to work through the issue. But it is not a 'should' issue, telling someone what to do. > No one that I know thinks that Kerry will make a great president. > The only question is can you take the chance of Bush being elected > (for the first time) and thereby threatening the world with rampant > imperialism, death and destruction, or voting for Kerry with the > possibility of a less virilent and unilateral imperialism Paul, Perhaps read the following and see if you remain convinced that Bush is more dangerous (this is an opinion from the right): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/10/24/do2402.xml John Kerry will make his adoring anti-war groupies look like fools By Edward Luttwak > and, possibly, > the opportunity to influence the outcome through political action and > democratic mobilization. Bush is hell-bent for destruction and no > amount of domestic political pressure will change his course I agree with you here which is why I also think that Bush will be playing as President come January. I include factoring in complicity -- or more -- in 9-11. The Democrats, forgeting everything else, are simply NOT the political force to take you into battle against the Bush people. It's too serious a problem for them to be engaged as the people's leader. Consider that even Wellstone, let alone Gore, could not be convinced to contest the Florida voting in 2000 and you have all the information you need to have (see the Moore film). We are in deep shit here. > During the post WW2 debates we all criticized the German population > because they did not stand up to fascism and ignored or refused to > recognize the increasing control of Hitler and fascist policy. Now I > know we are not supposed to use the words Hitler and fascism on this > list, but viewed from outside the US borders, there are disturbing > parallels that have some of us, next door neighbours, nervous. Who said you are not to bring up Hitler? Anyway, since you did, recall Jan. 1932 concerning Hindenburg: "The legendary hero would be supported not only by many elements of the Right but by the democratic parties which had been against him in the election of 1925 but which now saw him as the savior of the Republic" (W. Shirer, p. 156). You think of Kerry as the savior of the U.S. Republic. But what happened? Hinderburg defeated Hitler in the election. Hinderburg later appointed Hitler as Chancellor. Sure, parallels are never perfect, but there is a lesson here of serious thinking beyond Nov. 2. Consider those 70+ progressive leaders who switched from Nader to Kerry in 2004. If their politics was so clear-headed why didn't they support Gore in 2000? Maybe in 2008, they will have another statement for us about 2004 (I'm not holding my breath). One the > racial/ethnic targetting of non-white ('brown'), muslims. Two the > growing restrictions on civil rights including the stacking of the > Supreme Court. Three, growing militarism abroad in the quest of > 'lebensraum' -- in this case oil. Four, the use of torture and > assasination in the pursuit of military domination. Five, the invention > of knowingly false "cause" (the Rikstag fire) as an excuse for > repression and/or war (WMD in Iraq, mass executions and graves in > Kosovo). Six, electoral fraud to fix elections (Florida in 2000 and > numerous cases documented on this list in the last few weeks) in support > of Bush, etc. etc. Seven, the move into or against neighbours who do not > support the fatherland (Czechoslovakia -- Cuba, Venezuela). The > parallels to the rise of totalitarianism are, for me at least, quite > frightening. > Would Kerry be better? I don't know but he couldn't be worse. As > much as I like Nader and respect his positions and policies, which > unfortunately don't have an institutional support system, I know he will > not be elected. I am left with the opinion that Bush is such a great > evil that, whatever Kerry's sins (of omission and comission), I would > have to vote for him if I were American if only to protect the rest of > the world against one of the most dangerous and evil administrations we > have encountered in the last 60 years. Looking from a Palestinian point of view (as one example), do you really think a Palestinian could be expected to see their lives improved under Kerry. If not, are you asking a Palestinian -- could she or he vote here -- to oppose voting for Nader and his position on Israel/Palestine, and support Kerry instead? Paul Z.
