A follow-up from today's Guardian: "In any case, the influential Egyptian daily, al-Ahram, sees no substantial difference between Bush and Kerry, and has declared its support for Ralph Nader (of Lebanese descent), describing him as the only candidate who "responds to Arab-American interests and positions on Palestine, Iraq, civil liberties and world-wide respect for international law"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1339149,00.html Paul Z. ************************************************************************* Vol.21-Neoliberalism in Crisis, Accumulation, and Rosa Luxemburg's Legacy RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Zarembka/Soederberg, eds, Elsevier Science ********************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > <blockquote>Make It Count > > Once bitten, twice shy is a common response among Arab-Americans who > sided with Bush in the last US presidential elections. Yet the > "lesser of two evils" may not be good enough this time around, writes > Naseer Aruri* > > Arab-Americans seem confused, undecided and bewildered by the choices > (or more correctly lack thereof) facing them in the forthcoming > presidential elections in the United States. While George W Bush has > lost a good deal of the Arab and Muslim-American support he had > mustered during the 2000 presidential campaign, much of that support > seems to be now spontaneously re- channelled towards John Kerry. > According to a recent Zogby poll, Arab-American voters in the crucial > swing states of Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania who in 2000 preferred > Bush to Gore 58 per cent to 22 per cent, are now opposed to Bush > preferring John Kerry 78 per cent to 12 per cent in a two-man race. > > Now, only 28 per cent favour Bush's re-election, while 65 per cent in > the four main swing states want someone new. If we add the Ralph > Nader factor, 43 per cent would vote for Kerry while 27 per cent are > inclined towards Bush and 20 per cent towards Nader in 2004. > > Bush's earlier backing by the Arab-American and Muslim community was > largely based on domestic policy considerations and only marginally > driven by issues of foreign policy. Bush's un-kept commitment to roll > back Clinton's anti-terrorist measure known as "secret evidence", > together with the fact that Democratic presidential nominee, Al Gore, > chose the pro-Likud Zionist, Joseph Lieberman as his running mate, > constituted the deciding factor for Arab-Americans. They wanted to be > "relevant", but in opting for relevance they lost sight of long-term > strategic planning. > > Today, that segment in pursuit of relevance is defensive about being > held responsible for not having voted for the "lesser evil", as if > they should have to account for the unrepresentative nature of the > electoral system which grants the candidate with a simple majority of > the popular vote 100 per cent of the electoral vote, thus > exaggerating the victory of the winning candidate. One wonders > whether this segment of Arab-Americans should feel responsible, along > with the Founding Fathers, for a skewed electoral system that assigns > unequal and disproportionate weight in such egregious manner. Perhaps > the US officials now engaged in the project "export democracy" to > Arabs and Muslims can incorporate into their curriculum the basic > fact about the relevance of proportional representation to the > concept of democracy. > > Adjusting oneself to existing political realities is called > pragmatism or realism, as opposed to romanticism or dogmatism. But > there is nothing dogmatic about Arab-American voters following the > dictates of their conscience as well as interests, particularly those > who vote in the so-called swing states, in which a concentrated and > unified vote of mobilised and organised constituencies could tip the > electoral scales towards one candidate or the other. To accomplish > that end and thus place the community in a strategic bargaining > position vis-�- vis the two candidates and their parties, however, > requires long-term planning designed to demonstrate to the two > dominant political parties the relative weight and potential strength > of our community. That is realism par excellence, providing it is > done prior to the campaign and on an ongoing basis, and not on the > spur of the moment at the 11th hour. > > What is needed is a pro-active policy, not a reactive one, as often > is the case. Not doing that, on the other hand, and voting for the > "lesser evil" is placing the community at the mercy of both parties, > who can only welcome the free and generous support for their > candidates with no strings attached. Supporting Nader, therefore, > whose platform is the only one that responds to Arab- American > interests and positions on Palestine, Iraq, civil liberties and > world-wide respect for international law, would not only be an act of > conscience but an exercise in self-assertion and the only > demonstration of electoral strength as well. Far from being a > "wasted" vote, it would constitute the initial necessary investment > in a long and continuing process designed to keep all future > candidates apprised of the actual worth of the Arab-American vote. > > Had we begun that process in 2000 or long before, we would not have > even been debating the issues of waste and relevance at this very > time two months before the elections date. > > Do these "relevance-seekers" really think that a President Kerry > would remember that their votes in the swing states might have tipped > the scale in his favour in 2004, and might have even been a > determining factor in his victory? George W Bush certainly chose not > to remember the Arab and Muslim-American Florida vote that according > to some handed him the presidency in 2002. Needless to say, not a > single president before him has ever given Israel's war criminal, > Sharon, the kind of carte blanche that Bush gave him as he was > calling him "my teacher" and a "man of peace". And yet, those > Arab-American voters and activists, ironically with notable > representation from the ranks of the left-wing Palestinian national > movement, seem to have quickly forgotten Bush's betrayal as they now, > four years later switch their bets to the Democratic Party's > candidate, hoping he will be a kinder, gentler politician. > > Nor is it a sign of political sophistication to claim that the > "relevance" school is embarking belatedly on involvement in > mainstream politics. Such involvement does not necessarily assume > embracing the position of the establishment, with Republicans and > Democrats each having their own brand of neo-conservatives and > re-assertionists. Getting involved in mainstream American politics > does not imply being in the same trench with George W Bush in his > crusade and the "war on terror", as one Arab-American leader put it. > > Even if these presidential candidates remembered the presumed > "debts", and accounts payable, Arab-Americans would be excluded. > Their support of the Kerry-Edward ticket does not fit under these > categories. The presidential candidates would be disinclined to > acknowledge them as political debts, in view of the fact that no > prior deals had ever been made, plus Arab-Americans did not move from > a position of strength. They voted in the hope that in the future > absence of the Bush/Ashcroft gulag, their civil liberties will no > longer be in peril. One wonders if Kerry's running mate, John > Edwards, who helped draft the notorious "Patriot Act", is likely to > be more amenable, as vice-president, to showing proper consideration > for the civil liberties of Arab-Americans. > > It is rather curious that leading figures in the Arab-American > community claiming to represent the rank and file would shun the only > candidate whose positions are in such close proximity to those of > most Arabs and Muslims, particularly when the two principal > candidates try to outbid each other in embracing Sharon's position > and in trying to prove that their party is the genuine and principal > war party. John Kerry's foreign policy stance departs from Bush's > policies on Iraq in language only, but not in substance. With regard > to Palestine, however, their rhetoric as well as positions is almost > indistinguishable, although Kerry tries to outdo Bush in his > allegiance to the Likudist narrative and policy objectives. > > On Iraq, Kerry may admit that Bush has rushed to war, but will not > declare the conflict a mistake from the beginning, even after the > Senate Select Intelligence Committee's report has shown that the > rationale for the war was fraudulent. He was able to insure that the > Democratic Platform Committee lay out an exit strategy in name only: > the more troops other nations contribute, the less we would be seen > as occupiers and the faster is our withdrawal. > > Dutifully, the Platform Committee adopted language saying that as > other nations add troops, "the US will be able to reduce its military > presence in Iraq, and we intend to do this when appropriate so that > the military support needed by a sovereign Iraqi government will no > longer be seen as the direct continuation of an American military > presence." > > Kerry's presidential campaign assumed a very undemocratic position > when it imposed a policy of no debate of the platform on the > Democratic National Convention in Boston in July 2004. The Platform > Committee was able to avoid demands from the party grassroots that > the document described the entry into Iraq as a mistake and lay down > an exit strategy to get American forces out of Iraq. > > Kerry's rhetoric about building a multinational coalition and > repairing international alliances, decorated with tough language > about terrorism and national security, does not rule out a possible > commitment to Bush's concept of preventive wars. He is committed to > the concept of American global hegemony and thus will not risk a > withdrawal from Iraq that makes America look weak; hence his > insincere caution against a "hasty" withdrawal leaving chaos and > disorder in Iraq. > > On the Palestine/Israel conflict, Kerry tries to play catch-up with > Bush as the latter takes the initiative, endorsing Sharon's broad > violations of humanitarian and customary international law, including > massacres, ethnic cleansing, assassinations, building the apartheid > wall and denouncing the advisory opinion of the International Court > of Justice on its illegality. All this has lead Abraham Foxman, head > of the Anti-Defamation League, to say that "there's no significant > gap" between Kerry's position and President Bush's support for Israel. > > In fact, the real difference between the two principal contenders for > the US presidency is more rhetorical than substantive. Bush, as > president currently in power, initiates while Kerry, who aspires to > become president, endorses but tries to outbid. Whereas Kerry tries > to tar Bush falsely with the "even-handed" brush, he unwittingly > emulates the neo-conservatives behind Bush, who consider > even-handiness as immoral when the choice is between good and evil. > > Such disdain for fairness, legality and justice is apparently not > enough to conquer the "relevance" impulse of certain leaders in the > Arab-American community. They are, in fact, "wasting" more votes by > shunning Nader and failing to realise that the blame for a possible > Republican victory is not to be laid at Nader's and their own > doorsteps, but at that of John Kerry himself. For he has failed to > appeal to tens of millions of voters who oppose the war in Iraq and > endorse foreign and domestic policies based on the rule of law, > international cooperation and social justice. Such a failure entails > more potential for a "spoiler effect" than the candidacy of a third > party that advocates election law reforms consistent with democratic > procedures and a healthy measure of proportional representation. > > * The writer is chancellor of and professor emeritus at the > University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth. His latest book is Dishonest > Broker: The US Role in Israel and Palestine . > > (Naseer Aruri, "Make It Count," <em>Al-Ahram Weekly</em> 705, 26 > August - 1 September 2004, > <http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/in1.htm></blockquote> > > Cf. Naseer H. Aruri, "Arab-Americans and the US Presidential > Elections (2004)," 14 August 2004, > <http://arabamericansfornader.org/article/13/>. > -- > Yoshie > > * Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> > * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> > * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> > * OSU-GESO: <http://www.osu-geso.org/> > * Calendars of Events in Columbus: > <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, > <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> > * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> > * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> > * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> > * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/> > > >
