Re: dems, etc
Are you nuts? When has that kind of reverse strategy ever worked? The Vietnam War was started when the draft was in place and ended after the draft was abolished, which mitigates (though admittedly does not demolish) the argument that the draft fueled the antiwar movement. When Nixon was elected, some people said that that would expose the evils of the right and radicalize the population. So who was the radical president? Ford? Carter? Reagan? People said the same thing about Reagan, and we got W. Hello. It doesn't work. At 19:30 23/02/04 -0500, dmschanoes wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter Hollings [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc The mandatory service bill is a poison pill. It will make unjustified war unpopular and unsustainable. Peter Hollings And that is the single best reason for supporting reinstatement of the draft. dms Robert Scott Gassler Professor of Economics Vesalius College of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2 B-1050 Brussels Belgium 32.2.629.27.15
Re: dems, etc
Excuse me, re-read your history. The draft was eliminated in two phases, the first being the draft lottery, the second being outright elimination. US personnel were restricted from direct combat operations in IndoChina by the US Congress in 1971. The war in IndoChina did not end until the army of North Vietnam captured Saigon in 1975. Ending the draft, bringing the troops home, Vietnamization etc. etc. did nothing to end the war. That's what the chronology shows. It did allow the bourgeoisie to continue the war by proxy. The volunteer army is another one of those proxies. Nobody is arguing to make things worse in order to make them better, but it is a simple fact that a conscripted army from all of society is more responsive to the social conflicts at the root of war than a professional guard. People didn't say the same thing about Reagan and we got W. People said absolutely different things about Clinton, and we got W. Nuts? dms - Original Message - From: Robert Scott Gassler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 6:49 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc Are you nuts? When has that kind of reverse strategy ever worked? The Vietnam War was started when the draft was in place and ended after the draft was abolished, which mitigates (though admittedly does not demolish) the argument that the draft fueled the antiwar movement. When Nixon was elected, some people said that that would expose the evils of the right and radicalize the population. So who was the radical president? Ford? Carter? Reagan? People said the same thing about Reagan, and we got W. Hello. It doesn't work. At 19:30 23/02/04 -0500, dmschanoes wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter Hollings [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc The mandatory service bill is a poison pill. It will make unjustified war unpopular and unsustainable. Peter Hollings And that is the single best reason for supporting reinstatement of the draft. dms Robert Scott Gassler Professor of Economics Vesalius College of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2 B-1050 Brussels Belgium 32.2.629.27.15
Re: dems, etc
OK, maybe not nuts. Glad to know you're not falling into the trap I feared. At 07:06 24/02/04 -0500, you wrote: Excuse me, re-read your history. The draft was eliminated in two phases, the first being the draft lottery, the second being outright elimination. US personnel were restricted from direct combat operations in IndoChina by the US Congress in 1971. The war in IndoChina did not end until the army of North Vietnam captured Saigon in 1975. Ending the draft, bringing the troops home, Vietnamization etc. etc. did nothing to end the war. That's what the chronology shows. It did allow the bourgeoisie to continue the war by proxy. The volunteer army is another one of those proxies. Nobody is arguing to make things worse in order to make them better, but it is a simple fact that a conscripted army from all of society is more responsive to the social conflicts at the root of war than a professional guard. People didn't say the same thing about Reagan and we got W. People said absolutely different things about Clinton, and we got W. Nuts? dms - Original Message - From: Robert Scott Gassler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 6:49 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc Are you nuts? When has that kind of reverse strategy ever worked? The Vietnam War was started when the draft was in place and ended after the draft was abolished, which mitigates (though admittedly does not demolish) the argument that the draft fueled the antiwar movement. When Nixon was elected, some people said that that would expose the evils of the right and radicalize the population. So who was the radical president? Ford? Carter? Reagan? People said the same thing about Reagan, and we got W. Hello. It doesn't work. At 19:30 23/02/04 -0500, dmschanoes wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter Hollings [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc The mandatory service bill is a poison pill. It will make unjustified war unpopular and unsustainable. Peter Hollings And that is the single best reason for supporting reinstatement of the draft. dms Robert Scott Gassler Professor of Economics Vesalius College of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2 B-1050 Brussels Belgium 32.2.629.27.15 Robert Scott Gassler Professor of Economics Vesalius College of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2 B-1050 Brussels Belgium 32.2.629.27.15
Re: dems, etc
Watch the rhetoric. On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 12:49:30PM +0100, Robert Scott Gassler wrote: Are you nuts? When has that kind of reverse strategy ever worked? The Vietnam War was started when the draft was in place and ended after the draft was abolished, which mitigates (though admittedly does not demolish) the argument that the draft fueled the antiwar movement. When Nixon was elected, some people said that that would expose the evils of the right and radicalize the population. So who was the radical president? Ford? Carter? Reagan? People said the same thing about Reagan, and we got W. Hello. It doesn't work. At 19:30 23/02/04 -0500, dmschanoes wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter Hollings [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc The mandatory service bill is a poison pill. It will make unjustified war unpopular and unsustainable. Peter Hollings And that is the single best reason for supporting reinstatement of the draft. dms Robert Scott Gassler Professor of Economics Vesalius College of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2 B-1050 Brussels Belgium 32.2.629.27.15 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: dems, etc
The mandatory service bill is a poison pill. It will make unjustified war unpopular and unsustainable. Peter Hollings -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph Johansen Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 9:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc What of the contradiction here: if the right really wants to get behind a draft, why is it that the sponsors in the House are Conyers and Rangel, who would be in favor because 1) selective service this time would, in the bill drafted, not allow loopholes for the privileged, and 2) the absence of a 'patriotic' rationale for this blighted war in the minds of more and more people could very well spell disaster for the sitting administration? Ralph - Original Message - From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 3:20 PM Subject: Re: dems, etc snip * For Immediate Release: Wednesday, January 8, 2003 Contact: Andy Davis (202) 224-6654 Hollings Sponsors Bill to Reinstate Military Draft Senator cites current heavy use of reserves and national guard, need for shared sacrifice WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings last night introduced the Universal National Service Act of 2003, a bill to reinstate the military draft and mandate either military or civilian service for all Americans, aged 18-26. The Hollings legislation is the Senate companion to a bill recently introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). Specifically, the bill mandates a national service obligation for every U.S. citizen and permanent resident, aged 18-26. To that end, the legislation authorizes the President to establish both the number of people to be selected for military service and the means of selection. Additionally, the measure requires those not selected specifically for military service to perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity for at least two years. Under the bill, deferments for education will be permitted only through high school graduation. . . . http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/press/2003108C06.html * snip
Re: dems, etc
Peter is correct here. Today we have an economic draft, so the middle class is much less to complain about. In addition, the outsourcing of military jobs obscures the human costs of war. On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 11:30:43AM -0500, Peter Hollings wrote: The mandatory service bill is a poison pill. It will make unjustified war unpopular and unsustainable. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: dems, etc
- Original Message - From: Peter Hollings [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc The mandatory service bill is a poison pill. It will make unjustified war unpopular and unsustainable. Peter Hollings And that is the single best reason for supporting reinstatement of the draft. dms
Re: dems, etc
dmschanoes wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter Hollings [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc The mandatory service bill is a poison pill. It will make unjustified war unpopular and unsustainable. Peter Hollings And that is the single best reason for supporting reinstatement of the draft. No. It is true that the draft will make our work easier. Nevertheless part of our work is resisting the draft. That is not particularly contradictory either. The purpose of the draft is to enable efficient imperial war. We can't support that just because it will give us good slogans. If you want to you can secretly hope that despite our resistance the draft will be implemented. Just as you can secretly hope that wherever u.s. troops are sent there will be heavy u.s. casualties. But that really doesn't make very good agitational material. And objectively [that horrid word] what you are doing if you support reinstatement of the draft is supporting the death of draftees. The draft won't make our work easy unless it really hurts those who are drafted and their friends, relatives, neighbors, and only heavy casualties among draftees will do that. Mere experience of military service by everyone will have no effect on our work. Carrol dms
Re: dems, etc
Disagree. Our work is not resisting the draft, it is carrying the class struggle into the very heart of capital's military machine. That cannot be done by resisting the draft. The failure of the new left, in particular SDS, to move from anti-Vietnam war, anti-draft, to anti-deferment, isolated it from larger class struggle inside the military. Draft to enable efficient imperialist war? Not any longer. Vietnam proved that. Grenada, Panama, Gulf War 1, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Gulf War 2 have proved it again. We don't support the death of draftees, no more than we support the death of workers who are compelled to work in unsafe conditions. What we don't support is the false privilege that isolates the military from the actual social conflicts precipitating and precipitated by their deployment. dms o- Original Message - From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 7:46 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc dmschanoes wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter Hollings [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc The mandatory service bill is a poison pill. It will make unjustified war unpopular and unsustainable. Peter Hollings And that is the single best reason for supporting reinstatement of the draft. No. It is true that the draft will make our work easier. Nevertheless part of our work is resisting the draft. That is not particularly contradictory either. The purpose of the draft is to enable efficient imperial war. We can't support that just because it will give us good slogans. If you want to you can secretly hope that despite our resistance the draft will be implemented. Just as you can secretly hope that wherever u.s. troops are sent there will be heavy u.s. casualties. But that really doesn't make very good agitational material. And objectively [that horrid word] what you are doing if you support reinstatement of the draft is supporting the death of draftees. The draft won't make our work easy unless it really hurts those who are drafted and their friends, relatives, neighbors, and only heavy casualties among draftees will do that. Mere experience of military service by everyone will have no effect on our work. Carrol dms
Re: dems, etc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/20/04 8:08 PM Doug lives in New York: * NEW YORK BUSH 2,403,374 (35.2%) GORE 4,107,697 (60.2%) NADER 244,030 (3.6%) OTEHRS 66,898 (1.0%) http://www.presidentelect.org/e2000.html * Joanna lives in California: * CALIFORNIA BUSH 4,567,429 (41.7%) GORE 5,861,203 (53.4%) NADER418,707 (3.8%) OTHERS 118,517 (1.1%) http://www.presidentelect.org/e2000.html * Why waste two perfectly good votes and vote for Kerry when you have no reason to? It makes much more sense if you try to double the Green Party votes in New York and California -- you'll have a more powerful and energetic Green Party _and_ a Democratic President. Yoshie above corresponds to position i've held for as long as i can remember (and, no doubt, have expressed on elists) - there is no national prez election, electoral college mean that there are 50 state prez elections (actually as many as 3000 given that county elections officers determine ballot structure, so much for equal protection, but that's another matter), my 'popular vote' has no relationship to such votes in any other state... michael hoover (who lives in florida where - for number of reasons - evil of two lessers came into play in 2000)
Re: dems, etc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/20/04 8:08 PM Doug lives in New York: * NEW YORK BUSH 2,403,374 (35.2%) GORE 4,107,697 (60.2%) NADER 244,030 (3.6%) OTEHRS 66,898 (1.0%) http://www.presidentelect.org/e2000.html * Joanna lives in California: * CALIFORNIA BUSH 4,567,429 (41.7%) GORE 5,861,203 (53.4%) NADER418,707 (3.8%) OTHERS 118,517 (1.1%) http://www.presidentelect.org/e2000.html * Why waste two perfectly good votes and vote for Kerry when you have no reason to? It makes much more sense if you try to double the Green Party votes in New York and California -- you'll have a more powerful and energetic Green Party _and_ a Democratic President. Yoshie above corresponds to position i've held for as long as i can remember (and, no doubt, have expressed on elists) - there is no national prez election, electoral college mean that there are 50 state prez elections (actually as many as 3000 given that county elections officers determine ballot structure, so much for equal protection, but that's another matter), my 'popular vote' has no relationship to such votes in any other state... michael hoover (who lives in florida where - for number of reasons - evil of two lessers came into play in 2000) As I've argued on another (LBO) list, this is a decisive argument against the idea that a Nader or Green campaign would help Ubu: For those of us who find it more comforting to act *as if* this was a real election (and I haven't yet excluded myself from that category) the rational course would be to promote the strongest possible alternative candidacy and then, in late October, organize a one-to-two or three trade-off of (say) Nader votes in close states (say Florida, Missouri, Ohio) for Dumbocrat votes in uncontested states like California, New York, Texas, Indiana, Mississippi, etc. Shane Mage When we read on a printed page the doctrine of Pythagoras that all things are made of numbers, it seems mystical, mystifying, even downright silly. When we read on a computer screen the doctrine of Pythagoras that all things are made of numbers, it seems self-evidently true. (N. Weiner)
Re: dems, etc
Mike B wrote... IMHO, the anti-war, anti-empire movement will grow substantially if *everyone* in the mother country has to face the existential consequences which go hand in hand with the militarized maintenance of imperialism, *not* just those desperate enough to sell their skills to the volunteer armed forces for a living. Perhaps this could go further: War and empire both ride the rails of corporate personhood and overrun true persons. Not only could the duty to serve be spread to all persons, but, concomittantly, the rights of personhood (freedom of speech, self-protection, voting, campaigning, et al) should be reserved for only true persons and not arbitrary devices like corporations. Dan Scanlan
Re: dems, etc
Dan Scanlan: The best way to do that is to push from the left and don't vote for them. Bush has a long way to go before he kills as many people in Iraq as Clinton did, estimated at more than 1 million (compared to current estimates of tens of thousands in this war segment). I was thinking about this stuff this morning. It occurs to me that one of the worst things about the anybody but Bush line of thinking, especially from self-described Marxists, is that it amounts to a Great Man theory of history. You have national elections every four years when the winner gets a chance to determine future history sort of like pulling a lever to switch railroad tracks. I think a much more sensible approach is to see presidents as responding to deeper social and economic realities that make a reversal of the train virtually impossible without attacking those structures. The main fact of our epoch is an end to the postwar boom. This has led to attacks on the welfare state, trade unions and all the rest in order to make the USA more competitive in the world market. Voting for a Republican or a Democrat will not alter that reality. In fact, a Democrat was the first to respond to this new reality. Jimmy Carter's limits rhetoric was really his way of saying that the good old days were finished. Let's remember that Harry Truman, a Democrat, launched the Red Scare. But the Red Scare was not something cooked up by a President. It was the unavoidable response of the US ruling class to the reality of Soviet survival and expansion. The only thing that these bastards will respond to is street politics. FDR was elected on a balance-the-budget program. He switched tracks only after trade union struggles threatened the fabric of capitalism. Until the mass movement gets some muscle, the attack on working people will continue. Dean's campaign was interesting because it addressed the question of the role of the Democratic Party. He had the temerity to demand that it at least give lip-service to the idea that it operates on a multiclass basis, while Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman and Clark were for staying the course. If you had a million people marching in Washington demanding universal health-care, I suspect that even Bush would respond. Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: dems, etc
Title: Message Well, I am unsure that the system can be reformed from within. But, two initiatives come to mind: 1) Attempting to constrain the hegemonic American system from without through popular initiatives (perhaps coordinated through the World Social Forum) to boycott the products of any country that was not a signatoryto the treaty formingthe International Criminal Court; and, 2) Reforming the system from within by reducing corporateinfluence over the political process. The second would be difficult because the system would resist an change that threatens currently-vested interests. So, it will take focused, coordinated public pressure. Probably a range of measures would be necessary, such as, restricting corporate contributions, making the lobbying process more transparent, etc. Peter Hollings -Original Message-From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan ScanlanSent: Friday, February 20, 2004 1:30 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-L] dems, etc Do we need to keep huge pressure on the Dems? Hell yes. The best way to do that is to push from the left and don't vote for them. Bush has a long way to go before he kills as many people in Iraq as Clinton did, estimated at more than 1 million (compared to current estimates of tens of thousands in this war segment). Getting rid of Bush doesn't get rid of Bushism (a euphemism for black-hearted corporate control of government). None of the Democratic candidates, including Kucinich, is attacking the poison in his own party. What we are experiencing today is the result of the dismal failure of the Democrats to act Democratically when they controlled all three houses. They're as corporate as Republicans. They're just not as up front (i.e., transparent) as Bush. Notice they don't even try to appeal to (and thereby expand) the 10 percent of Republican voters who say they are embarrassed by Bush. I don't have a solution. Just pondering. I would, however, work to elect Kucinich if he chastised the Democratic Party and introduced articles of impeachment in the House. Perhaps he's too wrapped up in the run for the presidency to use this Constitutional tool to start a national discussion more significant than the present made-for-teevee situation comedy posing as a people governing itself, in which he is given a mere walk-on role. (Impossible? I reckon, since most of the members of the House of Representatives are complicit in the treason, notably passing the Patriot Act. But we do need a new national conversation, one based on what we set out to do as a nation. You know: general welfare, domestic tranquillity, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness -- that stuff.) Dan
Re: dems, etc
Louis Proyect wrote: I was thinking about this stuff this morning. It occurs to me that one of the worst things about the anybody but Bush line of thinking, especially from self-described Marxists, is that it amounts to a Great Man theory of history. You have national elections every four years when the winner gets a chance to determine future history sort of like pulling a lever to switch railroad tracks. I gag at the thought of voting for Kerry, but I will because I think Bush and his gang are not merely reacting to the passing of the post-war boom: I think they are looters and goons who will continue to wreak destruction if re-elected. I don't see a huge diff between dems and repubs. BUT Kerry won't privatize social security and won't make the judicial appointments that the Bush gang will make. It's not much, but it's something. The dems also set up different expectations for fairness and legality than do the repub/neo-cons. Joanna
Re: dems, etc
joanna bujes wrote: I gag at the thought of voting for Kerry, but I will because I think Bush and his gang are not merely reacting to the passing of the post-war boom: I think they are looters and goons who will continue to wreak destruction if re-elected. I don't see a huge diff between dems and repubs. BUT Kerry won't privatize social security and won't make the judicial appointments that the Bush gang will make. It's not much, but it's something. The dems also set up different expectations for fairness and legality than do the repub/neo-cons. Thank you. Such a vote not only doesn't pre-empt organizing outside the electoral realm, it probably makes it easier. Our revolutionary maximalists don't like to hear that - for them, it's either all or nothing. Which means it's usually nothing. Doug
Re: dems, etc
--- Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: joanna bujes wrote: I gag at the thought of voting for Kerry, but I will because I think Bush and his gang are not merely reacting to the passing of the post-war boom: I think they are looters and goons who will continue to wreak destruction if re-elected. I don't see a huge diff between dems and repubs. BUT Kerry won't privatize social security and won't make the judicial appointments that the Bush gang will make. It's not much, but it's something. The dems also set up different expectations for fairness and legality than do the repub/neo-cons. Thank you. Such a vote not only doesn't pre-empt organizing outside the electoral realm, it probably makes it easier. Our revolutionary maximalists don't like to hear that - for them, it's either all or nothing. Which means it's usually nothing. Doug As one of the revolutionary maximalists, I agree. I find it easier to live, work and organize under the Democratic Party faction than the Republican one. I think most people in the world at large would agree. Maybe most of us aren't as masochistic as the Repugs believe us to be. For the abolition of wage-slavery, Mike B) = You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. --Mark Twain http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Re: dems, etc
Joanna Bujes: I gag at the thought of voting for Kerry, but I will because I think Bush and his gang are not merely reacting to the passing of the post-war boom: I think they are looters and goons who will continue to wreak destruction if re-elected. Really? As Dan Scanlan pointed out, more Iraqis died under Clinton than under Bush. Plus, he bombed Yugoslavia for 76 days straight. Of course, with so much of the liberal and salon socialist left thinking that this was like fighting Hitler, very few cries went up over anybody but Clinton. If anything, Governor Bush's vow to avoid such adventures might have made him the lesser evil in some respects. I don't see a huge diff between dems and repubs. BUT Kerry won't privatize social security and won't make the judicial appointments that the Bush gang will make. It's not much, but it's something. The dems also set up different expectations for fairness and legality than do the repub/neo-cons. Of course Kerry is marginally better. If somebody demanded that I pick the lesser evil between Mussolini and Hitler, I'd have to go with Mussolini. But in any case, if you are not committed to socialist politics, it is of little consequence if you decide to back John Kerry. Be my guest. My quarrel is with the Kerry-supporting socialist left which is throwing out principles like a torn pair of socks. From the time of Karl Marx until the Dmitrov Popular Front, it was unheard of for socialists to back capitalist politicians. Marx wrote Critique of the Gotha Programme against followers of Lassalle who were supporting the Kaiser. I'd suggest rereading this if you are trying to reconcile Marxism with bourgeois politics. Maybe some people need to read it for the first time. Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: dems, etc
joanna bujes wrote: I gag at the thought of voting for Kerry, but I will because I think Bush and his gang are not merely reacting to the passing of the post-war boom: I think they are looters and goons who will continue to wreak destruction if re-elected. I don't see a huge diff between dems and repubs. BUT Kerry won't privatize social security and won't make the judicial appointments that the Bush gang will make. It's not much, but it's something. The dems also set up different expectations for fairness and legality than do the repub/neo-cons. Thank you. Such a vote not only doesn't pre-empt organizing outside the electoral realm, it probably makes it easier. Our revolutionary maximalists don't like to hear that - for them, it's either all or nothing. Which means it's usually nothing. Doug Doug lives in New York: * NEW YORK BUSH 2,403,374 (35.2%) GORE 4,107,697 (60.2%) NADER 244,030 (3.6%) OTEHRS 66,898 (1.0%) http://www.presidentelect.org/e2000.html * Joanna lives in California: * CALIFORNIA BUSH 4,567,429 (41.7%) GORE 5,861,203 (53.4%) NADER418,707 (3.8%) OTHERS 118,517 (1.1%) http://www.presidentelect.org/e2000.html * Why waste two perfectly good votes and vote for Kerry when you have no reason to? It makes much more sense if you try to double the Green Party votes in New York and California -- you'll have a more powerful and energetic Green Party _and_ a Democratic President. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * 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: dems, etc
Lou wrote: I don't see a huge diff between dems and repubs. BUT Kerry won't privatize social security and won't make the judicial appointments that the Bush gang will make. It's not much, but it's something. The dems also set up different expectations for fairness and legality than do the repub/neo-cons. Of course Kerry is marginally better. Kerry will be the lesser evil on lesser issues, but he may be the greater evil on a few crucial issues: In addition to his fulsome support for Israel and votes for the Welfare Reform and the Patriot Act, John Kerry has taken an even more hawkish stance than Bush on the occupation of Iraq: * Kerry warns of 'cut and run' in Iraq Democrat assails Bush policy; aide keeps open possibility of sending more U.S. troops Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry speaking on the campaign trail in Dover, N.H., last month. By Tom Curry National affairs writer MSNBC WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 - In a major national security address Wednesday Democratic presidential contender John Kerry was sounding an alarm about premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. I fear that in the run-up to the 2004 election the administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut-and-run strategy, Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery to the Council on Foreign Relations. advertisement The Massachusetts senator accused Bush and his aides of a sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal without adequate stability, which he called an invitation to failure. He contended that it would be a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle to accelerate the transfer of authority to Iraqis so as to allow a politically expedient withdrawal of American troops. Send more troops? Kerry foreign policy advisor Rand Beers told reporters Kerry would not rule out the possibility of sending additional U.S. troops to Iraq. It is very clear the number of troops is inadequate in Iraq, Beers told reporters in a telephone conference call previewing the speech. Kerry's first preference, he said, would be to persuade foreign governments to deploy more troops to help share the burden with Americans. But by not foreclosing the possibility of dispatching more U.S. troops to Iraq, Kerry seems to have changed his position and to have repositioned himself as a more hawkish alternative to Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean. . . . http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660748/ * Whether Bush or Kerry gets elected, counter-insurgency warfare against Iraqi guerrillas will continue. If anything, Kerry is likely to escalate it, sending more US and foreign troops to Iraq. Washington doesn't have many more US troops to spare, but a Democratic president can better persuade some foreign governments to share the burden by cutting more economic deals with them than a unilateralist Republican has. A Democratic president with a dual record of being a war hero and an anti-Vietnam War activist like Kerry might even accomplish the currently impossible: reinstate the draft under the guise of national service with a populist rhetoric of shared sacrifice: * For Immediate Release: Wednesday, January 8, 2003 Contact: Andy Davis (202) 224-6654 Hollings Sponsors Bill to Reinstate Military Draft Senator cites current heavy use of reserves and national guard, need for shared sacrifice WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings last night introduced the Universal National Service Act of 2003, a bill to reinstate the military draft and mandate either military or civilian service for all Americans, aged 18-26. The Hollings legislation is the Senate companion to a bill recently introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). Specifically, the bill mandates a national service obligation for every U.S. citizen and permanent resident, aged 18-26. To that end, the legislation authorizes the President to establish both the number of people to be selected for military service and the means of selection. Additionally, the measure requires those not selected specifically for military service to perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity for at least two years. Under the bill, deferments for education will be permitted only through high school graduation. . . . http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/press/2003108C06.html * I'm in favor of Peter Camejo's spirit: Cf. * The Avocado Declaration The Avocado Declaration was initiated by Peter Miguel Camejo (www.votecamejo.org). Peter was the Green Party candidate for Governor of California in the 2002 general elections and in the 2003 recall election. January 2004. . . . LESSER EVIL LEADS TO GREATER EVIL . . . Behind this view [the lesser evil campaign] is the concept that politics can be measured in degrees, like temperature, and that the Democrats offer a milder and thus less evil alternative to the Republican Platform. This view argues that to support the lesser evil weakens the
Re: dems, etc
Good point. Here's another question my little sister asked me the other day: If the popular vote doesn't mean anything, why do we vote? Joanna Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: joanna bujes wrote: I gag at the thought of voting for Kerry, but I will because I think Bush and his gang are not merely reacting to the passing of the post-war boom: I think they are looters and goons who will continue to wreak destruction if re-elected. I don't see a huge diff between dems and repubs. BUT Kerry won't privatize social security and won't make the judicial appointments that the Bush gang will make. It's not much, but it's something. The dems also set up different expectations for fairness and legality than do the repub/neo-cons. Thank you. Such a vote not only doesn't pre-empt organizing outside the electoral realm, it probably makes it easier. Our revolutionary maximalists don't like to hear that - for them, it's either all or nothing. Which means it's usually nothing. Doug Doug lives in New York: * NEW YORK BUSH 2,403,374 (35.2%) GORE 4,107,697 (60.2%) NADER 244,030 (3.6%) OTEHRS 66,898 (1.0%) http://www.presidentelect.org/e2000.html * Joanna lives in California: * CALIFORNIA BUSH 4,567,429 (41.7%) GORE 5,861,203 (53.4%) NADER418,707 (3.8%) OTHERS 118,517 (1.1%) http://www.presidentelect.org/e2000.html * Why waste two perfectly good votes and vote for Kerry when you have no reason to? It makes much more sense if you try to double the Green Party votes in New York and California -- you'll have a more powerful and energetic Green Party _and_ a Democratic President. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * 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: dems, etc
Good point. Here's another question my little sister asked me the other day: If the popular vote doesn't mean anything, why do we vote? Joanna The popular vote doesn't mean much, but voter registration work does. While you are registering people to vote, you can hand out information about local Green Party meetings, anti-war gatherings, information about the Green, Democratic, and Republican candidates, etc. You can ask them if they also want to sign onto mailing lists to receive action alerts, etc. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * 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: dems, etc
What of the contradiction here: if the right really wants to get behind a draft, why is it that the sponsors in the House are Conyers and Rangel, who would be in favor because 1) selective service this time would, in the bill drafted, not allow loopholes for the privileged, and 2) the absence of a 'patriotic' rationale for this blighted war in the minds of more and more people could very well spell disaster for the sitting administration? Ralph - Original Message - From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 3:20 PM Subject: Re: dems, etc snip * For Immediate Release: Wednesday, January 8, 2003 Contact: Andy Davis (202) 224-6654 Hollings Sponsors Bill to Reinstate Military Draft Senator cites current heavy use of reserves and national guard, need for shared sacrifice WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings last night introduced the Universal National Service Act of 2003, a bill to reinstate the military draft and mandate either military or civilian service for all Americans, aged 18-26. The Hollings legislation is the Senate companion to a bill recently introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). Specifically, the bill mandates a national service obligation for every U.S. citizen and permanent resident, aged 18-26. To that end, the legislation authorizes the President to establish both the number of people to be selected for military service and the means of selection. Additionally, the measure requires those not selected specifically for military service to perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity for at least two years. Under the bill, deferments for education will be permitted only through high school graduation. . . . http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/press/2003108C06.html * snip
Re: dems, etc
Right on, Ralph. If the chickenhawks want an empire, let them be ready to send their own kids to battle for it. Lest we forget, it was Nixon who got rid of the draft in favour of the all (poor prole) volunteer military. Regards, Mike B) --- Ralph Johansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What of the contradiction here: if the right really wants to get behind a draft, why is it that the sponsors in the House are Conyers and Rangel, who would be in favor because 1) selective service this time would, in the bill drafted, not allow loopholes for the privileged, and 2) the absence of a 'patriotic' rationale for this blighted war in the minds of more and more people could very well spell disaster for the sitting administration? Ralph - Original Message - From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 3:20 PM Subject: Re: dems, etc snip * For Immediate Release: Wednesday, January 8, 2003 Contact: Andy Davis (202) 224-6654 Hollings Sponsors Bill to Reinstate Military Draft Senator cites current heavy use of reserves and national guard, need for shared sacrifice WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings last night introduced the Universal National Service Act of 2003, a bill to reinstate the military draft and mandate either military or civilian service for all Americans, aged 18-26. The Hollings legislation is the Senate companion to a bill recently introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). Specifically, the bill mandates a national service obligation for every U.S. citizen and permanent resident, aged 18-26. To that end, the legislation authorizes the President to establish both the number of people to be selected for military service and the means of selection. Additionally, the measure requires those not selected specifically for military service to perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity for at least two years. Under the bill, deferments for education will be permitted only through high school graduation. . . . http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/press/2003108C06.html * snip = You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. --Mark Twain http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Re: dems, etc
--- Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good point. Here's another question my little sister asked me the other day: If the popular vote doesn't mean anything, why do we vote? Joanna The popular vote doesn't mean much, but voter registration work does. While you are registering people to vote, you can hand out information about local Green Party meetings, anti-war gatherings, information about the Green, Democratic, and Republican candidates, etc. You can ask them if they also want to sign onto mailing lists to receive action alerts, etc. -- Yoshie Excellent points, Joanna and Yoshie! Best, Mike B) = You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. --Mark Twain http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Re: dems, etc
Right on, Ralph. If the chickenhawks want an empire, let them be ready to send their own kids to battle for it. Lest we forget, it was Nixon who got rid of the draft in favour of the all (poor prole) volunteer military. You see, that's why I think it will take a Democratic president to reinstate the draft. A Republican president won't be able to inspire such a response. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * 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: dems, etc
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: [clip] [quoting Doug] Our revolutionary maximalists don't like to hear that - for them, it's either all or nothing. Doug, you know damn well that all Yoshie and I have talked about on these lists for a couple years concerns the best way of winning REFORMS, NOW, inside capitalism. Either prove from extensive documentation that there exist revolutionary maximalists on these lists or apologize for this lie. Carrol
Re: dems, etc
--- Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right on, Ralph. If the chickenhawks want an empire, let them be ready to send their own kids to battle for it. Lest we forget, it was Nixon who got rid of the draft in favour of the all (poor prole) volunteer military. You see, that's why I think it will take a Democratic president to reinstate the draft. A Republican president won't be able to inspire such a response. -- Yoshie IMHO, the anti-war, anti-empire movement will grow substantially if *everyone* in the mother country has to face the existential consequences which go hand in hand with the militarized maintenance of imperialism, *not* just those desperate enough to sell their skills to the volunteer armed forces for a living. Best, Mike B) = You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. --Mark Twain http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Re: dems, etc
Let's cool down. On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 08:59:12PM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote: Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: [clip] [quoting Doug] Our revolutionary maximalists don't like to hear that - for them, it's either all or nothing. Doug, you know damn well that all Yoshie and I have talked about on these lists for a couple years concerns the best way of winning REFORMS, NOW, inside capitalism. Either prove from extensive documentation that there exist revolutionary maximalists on these lists or apologize for this lie. Carrol -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: dems, etc
But my question is based on the assumption that Kerry plainly represents the same class interests as Bush, and Nixon, and that with the atrophy of the Dems' 'prole' support, as the DLC Dems as exemplified by Kerry and Lieberman as well as Gephardt, move ever rightward (not so to the same extent in Nixon's time), and as the working class constituent base of the party weakens, the Dems in power won't give it legs either. because they are as afraid of the consequences of a draft for their middle class supporters as are the Repugs. I assume that's what's motivating Conyers, at any rate, and most likely Rangel - that support will be tepid from the outset, or will quickly evaporate or shortly produce an unpleasant reaction - and put the contenders in an untenable position in their efforts to expand the military. And Kerry has declared his support for Israel as well, in reaching for the pro-Israeli vote, where there must be some thoughts about the tactical efficacy of a draft. Kerry obviously supports with every breath the imperial project, but I doubt at any rate that he could sustain support for the draft. We shall maybe see. (Who will speak to the motivations of good ol' boy Ernest Hollings in introducing the apparently identical companion draft bill in the Senate? An anomaly?) Ralph - Original Message - From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 4:33 PM Subject: Re: dems, etc Right on, Ralph. If the chickenhawks want an empire, let them be ready to send their own kids to battle for it. Lest we forget, it was Nixon who got rid of the draft in favour of the all (poor prole) volunteer military. You see, that's why I think it will take a Democratic president to reinstate the draft. A Republican president won't be able to inspire such a response. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * 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: dems, etc
a week or so ago, Jim D. made the point with which I agree that some of the Democrats differ from the Republicans in that they take a larger time horizon. Also, they can represent different factions. Historically, the Democrats favored Savings and Loans; the Republicans, banks. But what do we have to gain by debating whether John Kerry is a real progressive or not? I think we are all agreed on the answer. I don't think anybody's mind would be changed whether it makes sense to support Anyone But Bush or not. On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 05:34:05PM -1000, Ralph Johansen wrote: But my question is based on the assumption that Kerry plainly represents the same class interests as Bush, and Nixon, and that with the atrophy of the Dems' 'prole' support, as the DLC Dems as exemplified by Kerry and Lieberman as well as Gephardt, move ever rightward (not so to the same extent in Nixon's time), and as the working class constituent base of the party weakens, the Dems in power won't give it legs either. because they are as afraid of the consequences of a draft for their middle class supporters as are the Repugs. I assume that's what's motivating Conyers, at any rate, and most likely Rangel - that support will be tepid from the outset, or will quickly evaporate or shortly produce an unpleasant reaction - and put the contenders in an untenable position in their efforts to expand the military. And Kerry has declared his support for Israel as well, in reaching for the pro-Israeli vote, where there must be some thoughts about the tactical efficacy of a draft. Kerry obviously supports with every breath the imperial project, but I doubt at any rate that he could sustain support for the draft. We shall maybe see. (Who will speak to the motivations of good ol' boy Ernest Hollings in introducing the apparently identical companion draft bill in the Senate? An anomaly?) Ralph - Original Message - From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 4:33 PM Subject: Re: dems, etc Right on, Ralph. If the chickenhawks want an empire, let them be ready to send their own kids to battle for it. Lest we forget, it was Nixon who got rid of the draft in favour of the all (poor prole) volunteer military. You see, that's why I think it will take a Democratic president to reinstate the draft. A Republican president won't be able to inspire such a response. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * 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/ -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: dems, etc
- Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] a week or so ago, Jim D. made the point with which I agree that some of the Democrats differ from the Republicans in that they take a larger time horizon. Also, they can represent different factions. Historically, the Democrats favored Savings and Loans; the Republicans, banks. But what do we have to gain by debating whether John Kerry is a real progressive or not? I think we are all agreed on the answer. I don't think anybody's mind would be changed whether it makes sense to support Anyone But Bush or not. === Amen. Isn't the following every damn bit as important as which factions of the rich get to run and ruin a big slice of the North American continent while making life horrendous for the rest of us on the planet? http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2440367 ARGENTINA and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) go back a long way. In 1991, Argentina's foreign minister famously declared that he was seeking carnal relations with Washington. The White House never fully requited this desire. But the IMF has been in and out of bed with Argentina ever since, offering advice (between 1991 and 2002, it sent around 50 missions to the country) and money (at the beginning of this year, Argentina owed the IMF $16 billion). In December 2001, of course, the couple endured the messiest of break-ups. The IMF stopped pouring money into the defence of Argentina's indefensible currency peg (at parity with the dollar); Argentina defaulted, devalued the peso, and descended into economic and political turmoil. Now the terms of its relationship with the Fund are once again in flux. Last September, the IMF agreed to lend Argentina $13.5 billion, handed out in stages over three years, to help the country repay past loans. In return, Argentina would reform its economy and negotiate in good faith with the private creditors who hold $88 billion of sovereign debt it no longer services. Next month, the IMF will review its progress and decide whether or not to hand over the next slice of the funds. But Argentina is not waiting passively for the Fund's approval. Néstor Kirchner, the country's fiery president, has threatened not to repay $3 billion due to the Fund on March 9th unless the IMF guarantees to keep sending the cheques. Such brinkmanship has become a habit for Mr Kirchner. In September, he temporarily defaulted on a $2.9 billion payment due to the Fund. His punishment? That $13.5 billion loan on relatively cushy terms. By threatening to default on the IMF again, Mr Kirchner clearly feels he can retain the upper hand in their relationship. Mr Kirchner has proven equally high-handed with the country's private creditors. He has offered to give them 25 cents-worth of fresh bonds for every dollar of Argentine debt they hold. Pricing in unpaid interest and the riskiness of the new bonds, bondholders face a haircut of 90% off the full value of what they are owed. Until this week, Mr Kirchner also kept the price of electricity and other utilities frozen at rates that made sense only when the peso was still worth one dollar, not 34 cents as it is now-despite inflation of around 40% in recent times. This amounts to a default on contractual promises made to those utilities' shareholders. Argentina's close-cropped creditors are outraged by their treatment. Some are threatening to seize Argentine assets abroad. German creditors tried to lay claim to an Argentine naval vessel. An Italian wanted to seize Mr Kirchner's presidential jet. A Japanese investor reportedly has his eye on parts of Patagonia, the southern Argentine region from which Mr Kirchner hails. Earlier this month, NML Capital, an investor based in the Cayman Islands which holds $172m in Argentine debt, won court orders to freeze properties owned by the Argentine government in Washington, DC, and Maryland. Such gestures, however, are more an expression of creditors' anger than a serious attempt to recoup their losses. Without an army to back it up, a creditor will find most of a sovereign state's assets out of reach. Prior to a default, as James Carville, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, has said, the bond market can intimidate anyone. Governments, keen to borrow on favourable terms, will go to great lengths to maintain their good standing in the capital markets. After a default, however, a government no longer has any standing to worry about. It has nothing left to lose. What is at stake for Argentina is the timing and the terms of its re-admittance to the global capital markets. But Argentina is in no rush. Its current leaders complain that it has wasted much of the past decade trying to make the country safe for foreign investors. By binding itself to a currency board, pegging the peso to the dollar, Argentina let the ebb and flow of foreign capital dictate its booms, of which it enjoyed two, and its busts, the last of which
Re: dems, etc
I have no argument with that . The point I was after is not whether Kerry is a progressive, but that I don't think that we're going to have a draft with the support of a Dem administration any more than with the support of a Repug - and as I see it, subject to correction by anyone here, the tactical, class-based reasons therefor. Is that not a relevant subject for discussion here? Ralph - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 5:47 PM Subject: Re: dems, etc a week or so ago, Jim D. made the point with which I agree that some of the Democrats differ from the Republicans in that they take a larger time horizon. Also, they can represent different factions. Historically, the Democrats favored Savings and Loans; the Republicans, banks. But what do we have to gain by debating whether John Kerry is a real progressive or not? I think we are all agreed on the answer. I don't think anybody's mind would be changed whether it makes sense to support Anyone But Bush or not. On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 05:34:05PM -1000, Ralph Johansen wrote: But my question is based on the assumption that Kerry plainly represents the same class interests as Bush, and Nixon, and that with the atrophy of the Dems' 'prole' support, as the DLC Dems as exemplified by Kerry and Lieberman as well as Gephardt, move ever rightward (not so to the same extent in Nixon's time), and as the working class constituent base of the party weakens, the Dems in power won't give it legs either. because they are as afraid of the consequences of a draft for their middle class supporters as are the Repugs. I assume that's what's motivating Conyers, at any rate, and most likely Rangel - that support will be tepid from the outset, or will quickly evaporate or shortly produce an unpleasant reaction - and put the contenders in an untenable position in their efforts to expand the military. And Kerry has declared his support for Israel as well, in reaching for the pro-Israeli vote, where there must be some thoughts about the tactical efficacy of a draft. Kerry obviously supports with every breath the imperial project, but I doubt at any rate that he could sustain support for the draft. We shall maybe see. (Who will speak to the motivations of good ol' boy Ernest Hollings in introducing the apparently identical companion draft bill in the Senate? An anomaly?) Ralph - Original Message - From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 4:33 PM Subject: Re: dems, etc Right on, Ralph. If the chickenhawks want an empire, let them be ready to send their own kids to battle for it. Lest we forget, it was Nixon who got rid of the draft in favour of the all (poor prole) volunteer military. You see, that's why I think it will take a Democratic president to reinstate the draft. A Republican president won't be able to inspire such a response. -- Yoshie snip
Re: dems, etc
Michael P. writes:a week or so ago, Jim D. made the point with which I agree that some of the Democrats differ from the Republicans in that they take a larger time horizon. Also, they can represent different factions. Historically, the Democrats favored Savings and Loans; the Republicans, banks. Note that the longer time horizon is for the benefit of the capitalists, not the workers (or other subordinate groups). I think that the only way we'll get old-fashioned social democracy or even old-fashioned New Deal liberalism is if there's a large enough social movement -- international movements of labor and other anti-capitalist forces -- to push the Kerrys of the world toward it. (and if, we're lucky, that movement will be strong enough to set the stage for socialism.) But what do we have to gain by debating whether John Kerry is a real progressive or not? I think we are all agreed on the answer. I don't think anybody's mind would be changed whether it makes sense to support Anyone But Bush or not. As I said, I think voting is a pretty futile act, a cry of hopelessness, while active participation in the Democratic Party undermines the development of independent anti-capitalist movements. The most successful effort I've seen at electoral politics in recent memory was Peter Camejo's run for California governor. He was articulate, pretty progressive, and uncompromising. He lost (though why any leftist would want to actually be governor of California is beyond me), but at least he shook the status quo a little and may have made anti-establishmentarian politics make more sense to people. as for the dems, I guess I'd prefer dose. or to doze. Jim D.
