Re: The presidential election and the Supreme Court
The US has never pulled out of the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 (or 1929?), which banned war as a tool of foreign policy. So, as in WW2, it waits until the other guy declares war (as Hitler did), or simply organizes a police action. jd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list on behalf of Perelman, Michael Sent: Wed 6/30/2004 6:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The presidential election and the Supreme Court You are correct. Vietnam was also an undeclared war. Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel Davies Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 6:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The presidential election and the Supreme Court I seem to remember from university days that the power of Congress to decide whether or not the USA is at war or not, is one that has repeatedly been ignored by successive US Presidents to the point where it is more or less universally regarded as part of the dignified apparatus of the US constitution rather than the efficient part. Though I also seem to remember failing that part of the course, so I may be wrong. dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: 01 July 2004 02:02 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The presidential election and the Supreme Court You are right. Bush claims that Congress gave him the power, but in reality Congress was not empowered according to the Constitution to adbicate that right. On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 09:13:31AM +0200, Gassler Robert wrote: I thought only Congress can declare war. It's in the Constitution. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: The presidential election and the Supreme Court
or simply organizes a police action. jd That's why Washington loves the rhetoric of the war on drugs and the war on terrorism, casting the ostensible targets of military force as crimes. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.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/
Re: The presidential election and the Supreme Court
Yes, and even when they are on the right side, it must be a war. War on Poverty, War on Cancer, but no War on War. On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:04:46AM -0400, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: That's why Washington loves the rhetoric of the war on drugs and the war on terrorism, casting the ostensible targets of military force as crimes. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: The presidential election and the Supreme Court
I thought only Congress can declare war. It's in the Constitution. (One of the main excuses of the ABB crowd for backing the pro-war, DLC, Joe Lieberman wannabe John Kerry is that we need to reverse the rightward drift of the Supreme Court. Leaving aside the question of John Kerry announcing that he is amenable to the nomination of ultraconservative judges, this rather startling landmark decision should make you think twice about all this.) LA Times, June 29, 2004 SUPREME COURT / DETAINEES' RIGHTS Wartime President Is Again Outflanked By Doyle McManus, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists seized four jetliners and caused the deaths of nearly 3,000 people, President Bush has declared that the United States is at war and in wartime, presidents assume emergency powers they would not claim in times of peace. Bush and his aides said they had a right to imprison suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens, without court hearings. They asserted a prerogative to keep more secrets than before from Congress, the media and the public. And at one point, the Justice Department claimed the president could ignore laws prohibiting torture, under his inherent authority as commander in chief. But in an unusual series of reversals in recent weeks, the Supreme Court, Congress and public opinion all have intervened to draw new limits on the president's wartime authority. On Monday, the court ruled that the federal government could not hold suspected terrorists indefinitely without allowing them to challenge their detention in legal hearings, a significant setback for the administration. Earlier this month, the administration was embarrassed by a 2003 memo that claimed a presidential right to override laws regulating torture or, for that matter, any other military conduct. The White House, facing a public-opinion storm, promptly disavowed the policy. Before that, the administration sought to withhold documents and witnesses from a congressionally created commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, claiming they were sheltered by the right of executive privilege. But after protests from members of both parties in Congress, the administration backed down. For a year after 9/11, the executive branch got the benefit of the doubt, said Norman J. Ornstein, a political scientist at the predominantly conservative American Enterprise Institute. That was the case, for example, when Congress voted to authorize the war in Iraq. But it's not the case anymore. Part of it is time passing since the terrorist attacks, he added. I couldn't say the court's decisions would have been different if it were, say, three months after 9/11, but they very well might have been. Douglas W. Kmiec, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration who is now at Pepperdine Law School, agreed. It would have been interesting to know how different the outcome would have been if we had more recently suffered an attack on the homeland, he said. I do think the 9/11 commission and the furor over the administration's decision-making on interrogation policy affected the court's judgment. Kmiec said the decisions were an appropriate reminder of the importance of civil liberties, even in wartime. Earlier presidents also claimed emergency powers in wartime. The Supreme Court has rarely intervened and then, only after the combat was over, Kmiec noted. full: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess29jun29,1,5997448.story?coll=la-home-headlines -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: The presidential election and the Supreme Court
You are right. Bush claims that Congress gave him the power, but in reality Congress was not empowered according to the Constitution to adbicate that right. On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 09:13:31AM +0200, Gassler Robert wrote: I thought only Congress can declare war. It's in the Constitution. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: The presidential election and the Supreme Court
I seem to remember from university days that the power of Congress to decide whether or not the USA is at war or not, is one that has repeatedly been ignored by successive US Presidents to the point where it is more or less universally regarded as part of the dignified apparatus of the US constitution rather than the efficient part. Though I also seem to remember failing that part of the course, so I may be wrong. dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: 01 July 2004 02:02 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The presidential election and the Supreme Court You are right. Bush claims that Congress gave him the power, but in reality Congress was not empowered according to the Constitution to adbicate that right. On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 09:13:31AM +0200, Gassler Robert wrote: I thought only Congress can declare war. It's in the Constitution. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: The presidential election and the Supreme Court
From: Daniel Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] I seem to remember from university days that the power of Congress to decide whether or not the USA is at war or not, is one that has repeatedly been ignored by successive US Presidents ... Hey, credit where it's due! This provision has been ignored by Congress also. Carl _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
The presidential election and the Supreme Court
(One of the main excuses of the ABB crowd for backing the pro-war, DLC, Joe Lieberman wannabe John Kerry is that we need to reverse the rightward drift of the Supreme Court. Leaving aside the question of John Kerry announcing that he is amenable to the nomination of ultraconservative judges, this rather startling landmark decision should make you think twice about all this.) LA Times, June 29, 2004 SUPREME COURT / DETAINEES' RIGHTS Wartime President Is Again Outflanked By Doyle McManus, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists seized four jetliners and caused the deaths of nearly 3,000 people, President Bush has declared that the United States is at war and in wartime, presidents assume emergency powers they would not claim in times of peace. Bush and his aides said they had a right to imprison suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens, without court hearings. They asserted a prerogative to keep more secrets than before from Congress, the media and the public. And at one point, the Justice Department claimed the president could ignore laws prohibiting torture, under his inherent authority as commander in chief. But in an unusual series of reversals in recent weeks, the Supreme Court, Congress and public opinion all have intervened to draw new limits on the president's wartime authority. On Monday, the court ruled that the federal government could not hold suspected terrorists indefinitely without allowing them to challenge their detention in legal hearings, a significant setback for the administration. Earlier this month, the administration was embarrassed by a 2003 memo that claimed a presidential right to override laws regulating torture or, for that matter, any other military conduct. The White House, facing a public-opinion storm, promptly disavowed the policy. Before that, the administration sought to withhold documents and witnesses from a congressionally created commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, claiming they were sheltered by the right of executive privilege. But after protests from members of both parties in Congress, the administration backed down. For a year after 9/11, the executive branch got the benefit of the doubt, said Norman J. Ornstein, a political scientist at the predominantly conservative American Enterprise Institute. That was the case, for example, when Congress voted to authorize the war in Iraq. But it's not the case anymore. Part of it is time passing since the terrorist attacks, he added. I couldn't say the court's decisions would have been different if it were, say, three months after 9/11, but they very well might have been. Douglas W. Kmiec, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration who is now at Pepperdine Law School, agreed. It would have been interesting to know how different the outcome would have been if we had more recently suffered an attack on the homeland, he said. I do think the 9/11 commission and the furor over the administration's decision-making on interrogation policy affected the court's judgment. Kmiec said the decisions were an appropriate reminder of the importance of civil liberties, even in wartime. Earlier presidents also claimed emergency powers in wartime. The Supreme Court has rarely intervened and then, only after the combat was over, Kmiec noted. full: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess29jun29,1,5997448.story?coll=la-home-headlines -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: presidential election
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/22/04 3:29 PM Is the Nader campaign the best way to build the mass movements we need? jd no election campaign is 'best' way to build mass movements, they are too periodic episodic, too narrowly focused, running a campaign 'to make a point' (or points) is self-defeating, takes too much time, effort, money, may leave something in their wake (i.e., a few voters) but their purpose runs counter to building political movements, politicians/campaigns can have 'organic' relationships with/to mass movements (or vice-versa) but two should remain independent of one another - politics of streets politics of suites...michael hoover
Re: presidential election
Yoshie writes: If the non-DP left ignore the presidential election while others are paying attention, we simply help perpetuate the rhythm of US politics: three years of protests, one year of electoral campaigns for Democrats during which the gains made in the previous three years are lost, and then back to protests again. that's exactly what I'm arguing about: keep the anti-war (and other non-electoral) efforts going, whether there is an election or not. Break eht rhythm. jd
presidential election
[was RE: [PEN-L] Marxist Financial Advice] Carrol writes: Kerry has really put himself out on a limb, virtually promising to widen the war without limit in order to stay the course. I don't think the present administration has the nerve or the political muscle to do that. A DP president might. Emphasize _might_; in general I think leftists should simply ignore the presidency and go about our proper business of doing out best to build mass movements on whatever terrain the enemy creates for us. That is, the presidency, like the Rockies for Lewis and Clark, are just part of the terrain we have to deal with. in an earlier message today, he wrote: The first steps in getting a non-Bush president in 2112 or so is to run a Nader campaign that seriously damages Kerry, at the same time building the foundations for a larger anti-war movement in 2005 -- since it's fairly obvious that in international affairs Kerry is the greater evil. Is the Nader campaign the best way to build the mass movements we need? especially considering the fact that Nader is going to run it? Might it make more sense to simply ignore the presidential election (as Carrol's first comment above suggests), leaving the issue of actual voting to each individual's conscience (since it won't have much effect anyway)? I know that even if I end up voting for Kerry (it depends on how the anti-depressants are working), I'd never put a Kerry sticker on my car. It's similar for Nader. Rather, the sticker would be anti-war. Period. (I'm a one sticker guy, unlike a lot of leftists around here. I recently saw a car that had lefty political stickers _on all non-window surfaces_! I guess Bondo is too expensive.) jd
Re: presidential election
Devine, James wrote: [clip] Is the Nader campaign the best way to build the mass movements we need? especially considering the fact that Nader is going to run it? Might it make more sense to simply ignore the presidential election (as Carrol's first comment above suggests), leaving the issue of actual voting to each individual's conscience (since it won't have much effect anyway)? Probably Jim is correct here. I'm partly working out arguments for Nader to see what they look like, and in irritation at some anti-Nader material. Over on LBO I wrote an even post even more strongly in support of Nader, again mostly in response to Nader-hating. Incidentally, the Boondocks comic strip was delightful on that today. Those who don't get it with their paper should look it up on the web. One's relation to the campaign probably depends on local circumstances. As I mentioned in the earlier post, I know of a couple instances where people who share my view of the DP are nevertheless making serious political use of (sort of) supporting Kerry: mostly by voter registration and get-out-the-vote work. The same could be true of Nader support in some localities, and where that is the case I think the campaign can contribute to the core goal of mass-movement building. My own bedrock feeling remains pretty close to Jim's, however. I know that even if I end up voting for Kerry (it depends on how the anti-depressants are working), Which side is the Lexipro vote on these days? I sort of vaguely seeing a sample Michigan ballot from 1936. There were about 6 partly lines on it. (Greenback, Prohibitionist, Communist, Socialist, perhaps one or two others.) Those were the good old days. :-) Carrol
Re: presidential election
Jim wrote: Is the Nader campaign the best way to build the mass movements we need? especially considering the fact that Nader is going to run it? Vote for Nader 2004 = Vote for Camejo 2008. Might it make more sense to simply ignore the presidential election (as Carrol's first comment above suggests), leaving the issue of actual voting to each individual's conscience (since it won't have much effect anyway)? If all ignored the presidential election, it would make sense for us to ignore it, too, but the state of politics is not close to the stage where the government has lost its political legitimacy completely and elections do not matter at all any longer. If the non-DP left ignore the presidential election while others are paying attention, we simply help perpetuate the rhythm of US politics: three years of protests, one year of electoral campaigns for Democrats during which the gains made in the previous three years are lost, and then back to protests again. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.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/
A Giant Sucking Sound of the Presidential Election Year
The problem of presidential election years for activists on the left is not only that they tend to suck many activists' time and energy into the self-defeating project of electing the perceived lesser evil who turns against them but also that Democratic Party political machines suck big money out of small pockets of ordinary Americans with liberal bleeding hearts. . . . Take a look at MoveOn.org's project of making financial suckers out of its on-line activists at http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/05/giant-sucking-sound-of-presidential.html. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.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/
The left in the presidential election
The last few weeks haven't been nice to me. A gut infection landed me in hospitals, once in the Midwest and once in Mexico. So I've been unable to follow the discussions in the lists. These are my belated views on the electoral strategy of the U.S. left recently discussed here: We need to remove Bush from the White House not because he is the worst president ever or even in recent history, but because -- given the alternatives and by far -- four more years of Bush in the White House are NOT the most desirable option for people in the U.S. and the world NOW. Let's leave off the table whether the threat of fascism is real or exaggerated. Here are some crucial, undeniable reasons why Bush needs to be removed from office right away: Internationally, under Bush the U.S. claims an exclusive right to unilateral, preemptive aggression against whatever it defines as a threat. In other words, it is no exaggeration to say that the U.S. proclaims itself the *world dictator*, breaching the UN charter -- the formal framework of international coexistence adopted after WW2. Beyond mere declarations, the U.S. has already acted according to its new doctrine. Domestically, the Bush administration has pushed a vast program of wealth redistribution in favor of the rich and especially in favor of his sponsors. It is no exaggeration to say that Bush's economic policy is subordinated to this goal. Some of the measures (tax cuts, accumulated deficits) are clearly intended to sabotage social programs and hardwire high degrees of wealth inequality in the country for years to come. That will have (if it is not having already) lasting, devastating effects on the living and working conditions of people. The foreign and economic policy of the U.S. imposes a tremendous human cost on people, both domestically and in the rest of the world. A second Bush term is not unlikely to make things worse. Left to themselves, things can always get worse. In a general sense, the productive and *destructive* forces of the humankind are today more powerful than ever -- and their control is highly concentrated on the U.S. bourgeoisie. The White House is the most powerful office in the world today and in history. The U.S. people has a disproportionate influence on the decisions that shape policies that seriously affect the whole world. With this influence comes a responsibility, especially to those who advocate the international cooperation of workers. If we cannot have immediate direct access to the immense power concentrated in the White House -- the ultimate basis of which is our surplus labor -- we need to at least try and limit its immediate worst uses. A further question is whether, given the alternatives, we should replace Bush with -- say -- a Democrat, a Green, or a radical Marxist. The answer doesn't depend on our wishes -- it depends on our actual power. We may wish to have Jesus or Buda or Lenin in the White House, but our wishes won't make that happen. The best course of action depends on our strength. Some people (e.g., José Pérez) appear to question the assertion that the left in the U.S. is ideologically and politically weak. Perhaps we should be more precise and say that the workers' movement in the U.S. is weak to accomplish radical goals immediately, but it is in a position to make a clear difference in more immediate goals. Workers may not in the short run end capitalism, take power, or even lead the government, but they can help remove Bush from office and push (foreign and economic) policy reform. To the extent these reforms amount to progress in the workers' agenda, this struggle strengthens the independent political organization of the workers. Some people (e.g., Jim Devine) argue that the movement has limited resources and it needs to focus on the strategic task of organizing workers independently -- presumably building a new political formation with an unmistakable workers' agenda. In this view, participating in the electoral process or supporting a DP candidate is a waste of political energy. This is wrong. Removing Bush from office and pushing for a change in foreign and economic policy don't exclude helping workers educate themselves politically and build an independent political movement. In fact, we won't be able to build an independent political movement any time soon if we don't act seriously to stop Bush's reelection. We need to participate effectively even if we look at the election in its own narrow political logic -- if the race gets tight, for that very reason, to avoid helping Bush get reelected, and if Bush is to unravel, to bury him and his policies under the landslide. We cannot shun the direct effects of the current presidential election. If we agitate and organize exclusively on the basis of long-term narrowly-conceived class goals -- overthrowing the two-party system, ending racism, abolishing capitalism, etc. -- that is, pretending that the immediate consequences of a crucial
Irish Presidential election
Some observations on the presidential campaign in the Irish Republic. Tomorrow there is to be a Presidential election in Ireland. There are five Presidential hopefuls: Mary McAleese, Mary Banotti, Dana, Adi Roche and Derek Nally. According to most o fthe opinion polls McAleese is tipped to win. She is a right wing Catholic academic with a very close relationship to the Catholic hierachy. Despite the office of presidency being mainly ceremonial race itself has had a decidedly political character. The contest has been primarily between the Fianna Fail and the Fine Gael candidates. It has been reduced to a contest between two forms of bourgeois nationalism. The nationalism that places greater rhetorical emphasis on the aspiration of achieving a 32 county Irish republic and the nationalism that supports the continuation of the thirty two county republic with improved relations between the 26 and the 6 county states. The former demonstrates a greater interest in the concerns of the Catholic population in the north. Essentially there obtains only a marginal difference between the two parties. The former laying greater emphasis on republican rhetoric and the latter less. Both are essentially happy with the status quo. Consequently the debate has been a false one. It has been a debate centred around rhetoric and posturing. Even at that the former party has presented this positon in a rather craven suppressed way. It lacks even the confidence to present its token republicanism in an explicit form. This is how little confidence it has in its own images. Indeed in many ways its politics on the surface are that of posturing, images, hints and innuendo. In this way FF presents itself as a multifaceted populist organisation: all things to all people. In this way republican minded voters are seduced into voting for it. Less republican minded voters, on the other hand, are seduced into voting for it because of their belief that it is only mildly and thereby sufficiently and harmlessly republican. FG, on the other hand, wants to present itself as the party of the high moral ground. The party that personifies moral disdain for anything tainted with Provo terrorism and intolerance towards the bigoted unionism. It seeks to present itself as the party that is most understanding and accommodating to unionism. The party with whom unionists can best do business. The party that can be nationalist and yet unionist at the same time. The party of the two sides. In this way they present themselves as the party that can best achieve political and institutional reconciliation of nationalism and unionism. FG wants to present itself as the good guy. The party of the high moral ground, the party free from corruption. Conversely they seek to present Fianna Fail as the amoral and corrupt party that is not concerned with the complexities of the national question and thereby demonstrates insensitivity to Unionism. However the point is that there is essentially no difference between the two political parties. They are both bourgeois partitionist parties. They are both free from the mytical moral ground. The differences being presented to us then are one's of perception rather than policy. Difference of image, rhetoric and style. In a sense both parties are Celtic myths: identity politics. Regarding the national question, economics, social issues and security there is no essential difference between them. Consequently to make themselves electable they must artificially manufacture surface differences. This is analogous to brand difference of commerce. Both parties, in terms of their immediate interests, are merely concerned with securing political power as a means of gaining a greater share of the booty. Capitalism is essentially indifferent as to which of the parties take power. Their primary function for capital is that of sustaining capitalism by deception: creating the illusion of choice. In addition competition between the two parties keeps them, in some ways, on their toes. It makes it harder for them while in power to grow so corrupt and authoritarian that the masses loose confidence in them. It also means that if any one of the parties makes a mess of things there is in existence a government in exile waiting to step into its place. This then serves to protect the system and guarantee capital's continued existence. The individual parties have to justify their existence by manufacturing false differences, surface difference that is not real difference at all. In the presidential election Fine Gael led by John Bruton devised a presidential strategy designed to put Mary Banotti in the Park. The strategy was to "taint" Fianna Fail's presidential candidate by mispresenting her as crypto terrorist. Bruton's remarks on Adam's support for McAleesse formed part of this ground plan. The leaks that followed formed further links in the plan together with Banotti's xenophobic remarks about McAleese which she latter
[PEN-L:7390] U.S. Presidential Election Results; How The Argument Is Won And the
U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS Unofficial results suggest a record low participation in voting for the U.S. presidential and congressional elections on Tuesday, especially among the working class and national minorities. Even commentators in the monopoly-media were dismayed at the continuing decline in voter participation, which strongly indicates that Americans are fed-up with the archaic political system. By boycotting the vote, a majority of the American polity were demonstrating their disgust with the present political system and their strong desire for democratic renewal. There are approximately 190 million eligible voters in the United States. Most media accounts put the percentage of those who voted at less than 49 percent of the total. The U.S. Committee for the Study of the American Electorate predicted that the final tally will be as low as 48.5 percent making it the lowest in U.S. history. Initial data from the individual states indicate that in 13 states voter participation dropped as much as 10 per cent from the 1992 presidential vote. The unofficial figures are: total number of the polity who boycotted the election = 97,850,000 (51.5 percent); total votes cast = 92,150,000 (48.5 percent); number of the polity who did not vote for U.S. imperialist chieftain Bill Clinton = 144,846,500 (76.2 percent); number of votes for Clinton = 45,153,500 (23.8 percent); votes for Republican Bob Dole = 38,703,000 (20.4 percent); votes for Texas billionaire Ross Perot of the Reform Party = 8,293,500 (4.4 percent). The 23.8 percent votes for Clinton is not far from what most ruling parties in Canada receive. Even though this represents an approval rating of less than one-quarter of the polity, it does not stop the ruling class from declaring that they have a "mandate" to do exactly as they please. This represents a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, using a political system and mechanisms that are firmly rooted in the nineteenth century. A modern political system where the working class and their allies hold political power would have a political process and mechanisms to guarantee that the people could participate in governance at all times. It would allow the people to select the candidates for political office and easily recall them if they were not responding to the wishes of the polity. In a truly democratic country where the working class and people hold power no person would be able to hold any office with less than 50 percent support of the polity. The present U.S. political system is a farce and a hollow shell that does not even do a good job of camouflaging the brutal dictatorship of the financial oligarchy. Even U.S. bourgeois commentators are disturbed, making comments such as "This tells us that we have a democracy in crisis in America;" and "We have progressively destroyed the impulse for civic engagement;" and open cynicism from Chief of Clinton's Staff, Leon Panetta, who said after the election, "Let us now deal with the issues" It is up to the huge U.S. proletariat to overthrow the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and lead the way for revolutionary changes to the U.S. political system. HOW THE ARGUMENT IS WON AND THE AGENDA SET In Germany and France the anti-social offensive is in full swing. To justify the attacks on the living standards of the working class, the arguments used in Europe and the world over are well-known: the "necessity to control the deficits and debts, live within our needs, suppress labor costs to be competitive in the global market and of course there is no alternative to cutbacks." The European twist is that certain "economic targets must be met in order to qualify to have the new 'euro' as their currency." The discussion never gets around to capitalism itself and its demand for new sources of capital and places to invest in order to satisfy its drive for maximum profit. The media attempts to convince the people that there "must" be a greater union of Europe, and that this greater economic union "must" have a unified currency, and in order to have a unified currency each member state "must" meet certain targets for deficit and debt reduction. Highly-paid economists play a central role in creating this fiction. For weeks the German media has been full of the following tale: "Germany will fail to make the grade for European monetary union on two counts, according to a forecast by the country's six leading economic institutes. The assessment sent politicians and central bankers into a spiral of panic The institutes believe that...the public deficit will reach 3.5 percent of gross domestic product, significantly higher than the 3 percent benchmark set by the Maastricht treaty for single currency candidates. Public debt will exceed the 60 percent of GDP prescribed by Maastricht. That would, in effect, derail the whole European
[PEN-L:7290] U. S. Presidential Election Returns 1996 (corrected)
[Tow that last post to the trash] The nearly complete election returns in order (now with party names): x-Bill Clinton, Dem (i) 45,238,951 - 49 percent Bob Dole, GOP 37,607,011 - 41 percent Ross Perot, Reform Party 7,807,588 - 8 percent Ralph Nader, Green 575,985 - 1 percent Harry Browne, Libertarian 464,076 - 1 percent Howard Phillips, US Taxpayers 177,195 - 0 percent John Hagelin, Natural Law Party 109,238 - 0 percent Monica Moorehead, Workers World 28,471 - 0 percent Marsha Feinland, Peace and Freedom Party19,146 - 0 percent James Harris, Socialist Workers Party 11,678 - 0 percent Charles Collins, Ind 7,205 - 0 percent None of These, Oth 5,281 - 0 percent Dennis Peron, Grass Roots Party 5,138 - 0 percent Mary Hollis, Socialist 3,348 - 0 percent Jerry White, Socialist Equality Party 2,476 - 0 percent Diane Templin, Independent American Party 1,844 - 0 percent Earl Dodge, Ind 1,147 - 0 percent Peter Crane, Ind 1,105 - 0 percent John Birrenbach, Independent Grassroot 848 - 0 percent Ralph Forbes, Ind 844 - 0 percent Isabell Masters, Ind 712 - 0 percent Steve Michael, Ind 401 - 0 percent Compiled by Steven J. Raphael (who garnered 3 or 4 votes himself) "Quotations are useful in periods of ignorance or obscurantist beliefs." Guy Debord , *Panegyric*, vol. 1, pt. 1 (1989).
[PEN-L:5810] Financing The U.S. Presidential Election
The U.S. presidential election campaign has entered its final stage. The Democratic Party is set to acclaim chieftain of U.S. imperialism, Bill Clinton, as its candidate when they meet in Chicago in two weeks. The Reform Party nominated billionaire Ross Perot as their candidate this past weekend and the Republican Party is presenting Bob Dole, a professional politician for over thirty years. Financing for the events and publicity surrounding the presidential campaign comes in large measure from the federal U.S. treasury. It supplies enormous amounts of money to the three bourgeois parties. After Dole's official nomination the Republican Party was immediately given $62 million of taxpayers money. The Republicans said that $42 million of that amount was already earmarked for television ads. The Reform Party is to receive $29 million from the federal government. Other funding for the three parties comes from the 141 billionaires and other wealthy Americans, and from the big monopolies and trade unions. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
