Re: Tariq Ali on the US election
From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Before getting to the point of actually being able to split the Democratic and Republican Parties, we need an intermediate goal: do what we can to make the next POTUS a weak president, rather than a strong one. To do so, we need to decrease the shares of popular votes that go to the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. -- Yoshie Fewer votes mean a weaker president? Dream on. GWB lost the popular vote, and that didn't stop him from being the rootin'-tootin'-est, sure-as-shootin'-est hombre north, south, east, and west of the Pecos once he got into office. Mandates are for girlie men, as the governor of CA might put it. Carl Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges! -- Gold Hat, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre _ Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx
Tariq Ali on the US election
by Shane Mage No, its garden-variety Pabloism. war in Iraq...is very much a neocon agenda, dominated by the need to get the oil and appease the Israelis. (as if Kerry wasn't gung-ho to appease the Isrealis!) ^^ Next thing you know we'll be quoting the Protocols. Just kidding ! Charles
Re: Tariq Ali on the US election
From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Before getting to the point of actually being able to split the Democratic and Republican Parties, we need an intermediate goal: do what we can to make the next POTUS a weak president, rather than a strong one. To do so, we need to decrease the shares of popular votes that go to the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. -- Yoshie Fewer votes mean a weaker president? Dream on. GWB lost the popular vote, and that didn't stop him from being the rootin'-tootin'-est, sure-as-shootin'-est hombre north, south, east, and west of the Pecos once he got into office. Mandates are for girlie men, as the governor of CA might put it. Carl Actually, Bush was a weak president until 9/11/01: a big inauguration protest, Enron, unimpressive ratings, etc. According to Fox, for instance, Bush's approval rating during 1/24-25/01 was a mere 46%! FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Aug. 3-4, 2004. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president? Approve Disapprove Don't Know % % % 9/19-20/01 81 12 7 8/22-23/01 55 32 13 7/25-26/01 59 25 16 7/11-12/01 56 30 14 6/6-7/01 59 28 13 5/9-10/0159 26 15 4/18-19/01 63 22 15 3/28-29/01 57 24 19 3/14-15/01 56 23 21 2/21-22/01 61 16 23 2/7-8/01 55 16 29 1/24-25/01 46 14 40 ABC News/Washington Post Poll. July 30-Aug. 1, 2004. N=1,200 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS. Trend includes polls conducted independently by ABC News and by the Washington Post. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president? Approve Disapprove Don't Know % % % 9/13/01 86 12 2 9/6-9/01 55 41 3 7/26-30/01 59 38 3 5/31-6/3/01 55 40 6 4/19-22/01 63 32 5 3/22-25/01 58 33 8 2/21-25/01 55 23 22 CBS News Poll. July 30-Aug. 1, 2004. N=1,052 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample). Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president? Approve Disapprove Don't Know % % % 9/11-12/01 72 15 13 8/28-31/01 50 38 12 6/14-18/01 53 34 13 5/10-12/01 57 30 13 4/23-25/01 56 29 15 4/4-5/01 53 35 12 3/8-12/0160 22 18 2/10-12/01 53 21 26 (a href=http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm;President Bush: Job Ratings/a) I do think that Governor Terminator got it right, his sexist expression notwithstanding: liberals and leftists in the USA are more lily-livered than our counterparts in Spain. Big foreign terrorist attacks happen in the United States, and too many US liberals and leftists cancel planned protests, get all defensive about our alleged deficiency in patriotism, wave flags, call for war (under a UN mandate, naturally) on Afghanistan, inveigh against other liberals and leftists whose convictions against imperialism do not weaken after terrorism, etc. Big foreign terrorist attacks happen in Spain, and almost all Spanish liberals and leftists get galvanized, organize a gigantic demonstration, vote out the party in power, and bring their troops home from Iraq. What US leftists need is a stronger backbone and a harder ass. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * 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: Tariq Ali on the US election
From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Before getting to the point of actually being able to split the Democratic and Republican Parties, we need an intermediate goal: do what we can to make the next POTUS a weak president, rather than a strong one. To do so, we need to decrease the shares of popular votes that go to the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. -- Yoshie Fewer votes mean a weaker president? Dream on. GWB lost the popular vote, and that didn't stop him from being the rootin'-tootin'-est, sure-as-shootin'-est hombre north, south, east, and west of the Pecos once he got into office. Mandates are for girlie men, as the governor of CA might put it. Carl Actually, Bush was a weak president until 9/11/01... Yes, he's fortune's child is GWB. Carl _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: Tariq Ali on the US election
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/07/04 1:25 AM Before getting to the point of actually being able to split the Democratic and Republican Parties, we need an intermediate goal: do what we can to make the next POTUS a weak president, rather than a strong one. To do so, we need to decrease the shares of popular votes that go to the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Yoshie what poli sci people called 'political capital' is mixture of public approval party seats in congress, kerry prez - almost by definition - would be weak, win will likely be close, dems unlikely to regain control of either congressional chamber (jfk campaign appears to have taken page from '96 clinton playbook in that regard)... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Tariq Ali on the US election
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/07/04 1:27 PM Actually, Bush was a weak president until 9/11/01: a big inauguration protest, Enron, unimpressive ratings, etc. According to Fox, for instance, Bush's approval rating during 1/24-25/01 was a mere 46%! Yoshie pre-9/11: congress passed major bush tax cut, education, energy bills (latter 2 after jeffords became ind and dems gained control of senate), congress also passed bush's so-called 'bankruptcy reform', bush abandoned kyoto treaty, bush signed regressive executive orders re. abortion, labor, health care, among other things... while 9/11 'made' bush presidency, dems and conservative media had already allowed bush to get out from under stigma of being 'his fraudulency 2' (rutherford hayes was called 'his fraudulency' through term after winning 'corrupt bargain' election of 1876)... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Tariq Ali on the US election
(The following is from Doug Henwood's LBO-list. I may have missed Doug also posting it here. If so, my apologies for duplicating it. But a case can be made for reading Tariq Ali's comments twice. Ali, the radical British political commentator and playwright, has IMO succinctly grasped what is essential from the POV of the left in this particular US election -- what the so-called Anybody but Bush sentiment represents in the popular consciousness. Ali describes it as positive -- a point of some contention on this and other left lists -- and that it offers the potential for further advance if it is embraced. Note too his understanding that despite Kerry's electoral opportunism on Iraq, a Democratic administration would not have invaded Iraq. TA was interviewed on Doug's radio show.) Marv Gandall DH: You've said that a defeat of Bush would be regarded globally as a victory. What did you mean? TA: As you know, I travel a great deal, and everywhere I go there is growing anger and if one can be totally blunt real hatred of this administration because of what it did in Iraq - the war it waged, the civilians it killed, the mess it's made, and its inability to understand the scale of what it's done. And from that point of view, if the American population were to vote Bush out of office, the impact globally would be tremendous. People would say this guy took his country to war, surrounded by neocons who developed bogus arguments and lies, he lied to his people, he misused intelilgence information, and the American people have voted him out. That in itself could have a tremendous impact on world public opinion A defeat for a warmonger regime in Washington would be seen as a step forward. I don't go beyond that, but it would have an impact globally. DH: A lot of people on the American left are saying Kerry's not much better, and that Bush not all that much out of the ordinary. Kerry opened his acceptance speech with a military salute. He'd be pretty much more of the same. What do you say to that? TA: We're talking about the government which took the United States to war. Had Gore been elected, he would have gone to war in Afghanistan, but I doubt he would have gone to war in Iraq. This is very much a neocon agenda, dominated by the need to get the oil and appease the Israelis. This war in Iraq is very much something this administration went for. The defeat of this administration would be a defeat of the war party. What would Kerry do? He wouldn't do good things immediately, but everything is to be gained from changing the regime, and then putting massive pressure on Kerry to pull the troops out. It's not going to be easy, but it would be a much better relationship of forces if Bush is voted out. Let's assume that Kerry is the most opportunistic, foolish, weak, etc., then he will know that the reason Bush was voted out was because of this war. There is an argument doing the rounds on the American left that says that Bush has united the world against the American empire, but I do not like arguments like that. This is an argument you can have from the luxury from your sitting room or kitchen in the United States, but this particular regime has taken the lives of at least 37,000 civilians in Iraq, not counting the old army. For them it's not an abstract question. So a defeat of Bush would be regarded in many parts of the world as a small victory. This doesn't mean one has any illusions about Kerry. I certainly don't. I'm pretty disgusted by the militarism at the Democratic convention But despite all that - and we know what the Democrats are, we know the wars they've waged - our options at the moment are limited. Do we try to defeat a warmonger government or not? Do we do our best to do it? If Kerry goes on in the same way, we just have to fight him. So what? We've been doing this for a long time. DH: There are a lot of people who argue that personnel don't matter - that the war emerged from the inner needs of American capitalism, American imperialism. That it was the rate of profit, the oil price, that forced the hand, and whoever is sitting in the Oval Office is just a pawn of larger forces. Do you buy that? TA: I don't buy that. If you believe that's all there is to it, then you can give up politics. Just wait at home for the big catastrophe. This is not the way you mobilize public opinion, or engage in debates to win people over. For me, that's a dead argument, because it means you don't have to win people over. The only way you win people to your side is to go out in the streets, you argue, you talk. There is a lot to be done at the present time. A defeat for Bush would create a different atmosphere in American political culture, to show it can be done. It will make people much more critical. The honeymoon period with Kerry would be much shorter than with Clinton. Whatever Kerry says, most people who vote for him, will do so because they don't like what Bush
Re: Tariq Ali on the US election
Marvin Gandall wrote: (The following is from Doug Henwood's LBO-list. I may have missed Doug also posting it here. If so, my apologies for duplicating it. But a case can be made for reading Tariq Ali's comments twice. Ali, the radical British political commentator and playwright, has IMO succinctly grasped what is essential from the POV of the left in this particular US election -- what the so-called Anybody but Bush sentiment represents in the popular consciousness. Ali describes it as positive -- a point of some contention on this and other left lists -- and that it offers the potential for further advance if it is embraced. Note too his understanding that despite Kerry's electoral opportunism on Iraq, a Democratic administration would not have invaded Iraq. TA was interviewed on Doug's radio show.) That's entirely possible. The Democrats were satisfied to keep Iraq bleeding through a combination of sanctions and highly focused military strikes from the air. That's the basic difference between the two parties: Madeline Albright, with her disgusting rhinestone American flag pin, telling an interviewer that it was worth the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children to secure freedom in Iraq; and Condoleeza Rice telling the same interviewer that freedom must be secured through occupation. Frankly, I consider the ABB phenomenon to be almost unparalleled on the left. To have ostensibly radical personalities like Tariq Ali implicitly urging a vote for Kerry (he seems to have mastered the Earl Browder art of obfuscation in not actually saying as much) tells me that we have reached a turning-point in US politics. I am ready to build a new movement that uses ABB as a litmus test. Despite my problems with State Capitalist ideology, I feel much more of an affinity for Todd Chretien--the California petition coordinator for Nader-Camejo and ISO member--than I do for Bob McChesney, the long time MR figure. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what McChesney thinks about Cuba if he can't get this Kerry thing right. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Tariq Ali on the US election
I don't see any more reason to demonize ABB people than to demonize Nader people. Both sides see themselves as promoting the left albeit by different routes. On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 09:05:05PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: Despite my problems with State Capitalist ideology, I feel much more of an affinity for Todd Chretien--the California petition coordinator for Nader-Camejo and ISO member--than I do for Bob McChesney, the long time MR figure. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what McChesney thinks about Cuba if he can't get this Kerry thing right. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Tariq Ali on the US election
Michael Perelman wrote: I don't see any more reason to demonize ABB people than to demonize Nader people. Both sides see themselves as promoting the left albeit by different routes. I am sorry, Michael. This is not demonizing: Frankly, I consider the ABB phenomenon to be almost unparalleled on the left. To have ostensibly radical personalities like Tariq Ali implicitly urging a vote for Kerry (he seems to have mastered the Earl Browder art of obfuscation in not actually saying as much) tells me that we have reached a turning-point in US politics. When Tariq Ali was reported to be a Dean supporter, I wrote him an email trying to pin him down. He said that he didn't actually call for a vote for Dean but thought that it would inspire people to see Bush voted out of office. In my view, this is Browderism raised to the level of art. I guess being a novelist (even a modestly successful one) prepares you for this kind of dexterity with language. I prefer straight-shooting myself. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Tariq Ali on the US election
Good people disagree on the Nader/Kerry decision. I think that we all know the rationale for each choice. I don't think that either side comes out well, if you only look at what some of their supporters have done -- denying Nader his right to run through dirty tricks or cavorting with the right. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Tariq Ali on the US election
Marvin Gandall wrote: (The following is from Doug Henwood's LBO-list. I may have missed Doug also posting it here. If so, my apologies for duplicating it. But a case can be made for reading Tariq Ali's comments twice. Ali, the radical British political commentator and playwright, has IMO succinctly grasped what is essential from the POV of the left in this particular US election -- what the so-called Anybody but Bush sentiment represents in the popular consciousness. Ali describes it as positive -- a point of some contention on this and other left lists -- and that it offers the potential for further advance if it is embraced. Note too his understanding that despite Kerry's electoral opportunism on Iraq, a Democratic administration would not have invaded Iraq. TA was interviewed on Doug's radio show.) First, I agree with Michael Perelman. I think the ABB people are terribly wrong, but I also think that most of them will be with us in the long-run struggle against US intervention around the world. Earlier I came to detest John Lacny for his letter to Counterpunch in which he termed those who rejected ABB traitors. (A letter to Counterpunch is public domain as it were and disqualifies him for even the minimal courtesy one might extend to a poster on a maillist.) Michael Perelman wrote: I don't see any more reason to demonize ABB people than to demonize Nader people. Both sides see themselves as promoting the left albeit by different routes. I have already posted briefly in response to Tariq on lbo-talk: Dwayne Monroe wrote: Doug (quoting Tariq Aziz): A defeat for Bush would create a different atmosphere in American political culture, to show it can be done. It will make people much more critical. I hope (assuming Kerry wins) that Tariq is correct. I don't think he is. Lincoln's election created a different atmosphere. I don't know of any other presidential election that has. We shall see. Carrol Marvin's final point: Note too his understanding that despite Kerry's electoral opportunism on Iraq, a Democratic administration would not have invaded Iraq. That is disingenuous. A Democratic Administration (Clinton's) had _already_ invaded Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. And without that assault underway Bush's invasion would not have been likely. Leftists have not in 68 years gained by tying themselves to the DP. That tie must be broken, unambiguously. Carrol
Re: Tariq Ali on the US election
Louis Proyect on Tariq Ali: this is Browderism raised to the level of art. No, its garden-variety Pabloism. war in Iraq...is very much a neocon agenda, dominated by the need to get the oil and appease the Israelis. (as if Kerry wasn't gung-ho to appease the Isrealis!)
Re: Tariq Ali on the US election
TA: We're talking about the government which took the United States to war. Had Gore been elected, he would have gone to war in Afghanistan, but I doubt he would have gone to war in Iraq. This is very much a neocon agenda, dominated by the need to get the oil and appease the Israelis. Washington went to war mainly because the sanction on Iraq was unraveling, so I think that the Democratic White House would have been as belligerent toward Iraq as the Republican one has been, except a Democratic president would have given a bigger piece of action to the European power elites than the Republican one has. A Democratic president would have been more aggressive toward Russia and North Korea than the Republican one has been. DH: There are a lot of people who argue that personnel don't matter - that the war emerged from the inner needs of American capitalism, American imperialism. That it was the rate of profit, the oil price, that forced the hand, and whoever is sitting in the Oval Office is just a pawn of larger forces. Do you buy that? TA: I don't buy that. If you believe that's all there is to it, then you can give up politics. Just wait at home for the big catastrophe. The question doesn't make political sense, so the answer doesn't either. Before getting to the point of actually being able to split the Democratic and Republican Parties, we need an intermediate goal: do what we can to make the next POTUS a weak president, rather than a strong one. To do so, we need to decrease the shares of popular votes that go to the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * 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/
