I inquired of a contact in Egypt what the GUARDIAN report of the Egyptian newspaper AL-AHRAM endorsement of Nader may mean.
GUARDIAN report: "... 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"." MY CONTACT: Al-Ahram is the main official paper in Egypt and the oldest too. It accommodates some opposition views along with the mainstream governmental ones too. Those who wrote this passage [in the GUARDIAN] however, do not know that in the 'democracy' game of the American government and its class rule there is no real place for a second or a third way. It is either Bush_1 or Bush _2 (Kerry). ... nobody in Egypt would dare to openly support neither Bush nor Kerry because the majority hates Bush and know that Kerry is not going to be much different. To say this in papers, is common. Maybe, Nader is not well know in Egypt. But generally speaking even lay people do not trust the American politics or find any hope in changing the US government's position in the middle east. --- END QUOTE I cannot 'fit' Tariq Ali's opinion into Egyptian mass opinion. Yet, Ali is basing his judgement -- that we should vote Kerry -- precisely upon U.S. policy in the Middle East. Suppose, we would start with the mass opinion, rather that Ali's. Wouldn't it be the more reliable building block? Doug, if Ali should have an answer how to 'fit' his opinion into the info above, it would be useful to have it. Thanks. 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 Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Doug Henwood wrote: > [Tariq Ali asked me to circulate this. He sent it under the subject > heading "Rage from Outer Space." You can listen to the interview at > <http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html>.] > > BUSH VERSUS KERRY: > FOR THE RECORD > > As I expected my interview with Doug Henwood on the US elections has > resulted in a flurry of e-mails and not a few distortions, which one > has come to expect from sections of the US Left. Not a single e-mail > from friends/comrades/acquaintances on any other continent. Outside > the US few progressives get agitated when one hopes in public that > Bush is defeated. Before the more virulent sectarians begin to choke > in their own bile let me set the record straight on what my views are > and what they are not. Soon the elections will be over and we can get > back to uniting against the war in Iraq and adventures elsewhere. > > (1) A defeat for Bush would be a defeat for a war-monger President > who invaded Iraq and whose policies have left 100,000 Iraqi civilians > and over a 1000 US soldiers dead. Tens of thousands have been > severely wounded. Defeating a regime that has waged this war is not > an abstract question. It is real and should be a priority for > everyone who was opposed to the war in Iraq. A victory for Bush could > have a demoralising impact globally and in the US. In Iraq and > Venezuela, Afghanistan and Cuba, South Africa and China, people will > think Bush has been re-elected because a majority of the US > electorate support his policies. The defeat of the incumbent has to > be de-linked from the political character of the available > alternative. Why? Because a defeat for Bush will mark a defeat for > his policies. > > (2) Defeating Bush, alas, means voting for Kerry in the swing states. > His policies, except on abortion and some other social issues, are > virtually indistinguishable from those of Bush. We can all wish there > was a better candidate, but there ain't one. And we do need a > candidate to defeat Bush. I agree with many of Alexander Cockburn's > criticisms as expressed in the latest New Left Review, while > disagreeing with his conclusions. Despite the pathetic nature of > Kerry and his cohort Edwards, the Left has no other choice IF it > wants to defeat Bush. If it regards the outcome of the election as > irrelevant, then of course, I understand the anger directed against > myself. Rage from outer-space leaves me unmoved. > > (3) A significant proportion of Democratic voters are opposed to the > war and if Kerry continues on the same trajectory in Iraq as he > promises to do then a section of his own base will detach itself and > fight against him from Day One. That is why I have argued that the > Inauguration should be an occasion for the largest national antiwar > gathering possible demanding the withdrawal of all US troops from > Iraq. There is no question of 'sowing illusions' in Kerry or the > Democrats. The last chapter of the paperback 'Bush in Babylon' makes > my views on the US Democrats very clear. So we will carry on fighting > the incumbent if the incumbent carries on the war in Iraq. And if he > does then surely at the end of four years he will go down as well and > an intelligent third party could have an impact. But four years is a > long way away and the US Empire is not as strong as it imagines. If > they do not withdraw from Iraq they will be humiliated. Which is why > some real nutters privately speak of nukes and killing a million > Iraqis to calm the situation. > > (4) I feel exactly the same regarding our local war-monger Tony > Blair. I am for his defeat, despite the backing he has received from > the labour movement. If a Liberal-Democrat candidate can defeat a > pro-war New Labour ghoul, then I will vote for the Liberal-Democrats, > despite their Kerry-like weaknesses. The reasons are the same. > Politicians who deserve to be tried as war-criminals should not be > elected. > > (5) Many dear friends are committed to voting Nader/Camejo. On the > West Coast and in New York this registers a vote to the left of Kerry > and could add to the pressure but only if Kerry were elected. If the > dynamic duo help Bush win in the swing states, you can say farewell > to the chance of creating a meaningful Third Party for many, many > years. I do not live in the United States, but am reassured that Noam > Chomsky, Howard Zinn and other veterans hold a similar view. > > >
