Reply #115: !!

[zoeyfong]

Reply:
The point to say "no more" is now, when the "more" we face is 4 "more" years of an absolutely insane, criminally ignorant and messianic administration.

>>>>>>If the Bush administration is that bad, then why did so many dems go along with it? I agree that Bush is bad, but I can not stomach the bush bashing from dems who were accomplices in the worst of his crimes.


Kerry doesn't strike me as a warmonger, far from it. His support for IWR puts him in the same company with lots of politicians I respect. I'm sure most of them regret it. But if you seriously reflect on the mood of the country post-9/11, it would have been political suicide to oppose IWR or the patriot act.

>>>>>>Don't think so. I don't think any of the people who voted against IWR lost in 2002. In any case, this is where character and integrity come in. I have quit jobs over principles far less weighty than war and peace, and my livelihood depends on my job. From what i hear, Kerry is pretty well set for life, and he could certainly have afforded to go down with dignity. As i asked originally, if a person doesn't take a stand here, then where? Only a couple people actually answered and mentioned some priciple that they would not sacrifice.

Anyway, yes, it was a crazy time, and many succumbed to the temptation to jump on the hysterical 'national security' badwagon, but many others saw the madness for what is was from the very beginning. I myself saw it, and i tell you, i have never been more disappointed in *America* (not just Bush) than i have been since 9-11. You will never, ever convince me that any one should be excused for going along with this mass hysteria and paranoid, national self-destruction. History does not remember kindly those who silently acquiesce under such circumstances; it remembers those who stand resolutely, unmistakeably against the madness.


I would maintain that you are NOT being realistic because there is simply NO other option save 4 more years of hell or the possibility

>>>>i'm not disagreeing with that, but i'm saying that short term gains from this strategy come at the expense of, or in the place of, more necessary, far-reaching, long-term gains.


that things could start to improve under a presidency of some intellectual depth, international legitimacy, and emotional maturity. Kucinich and Nader won't win, and they each have flaws quite as serious to me as Kerry's. Voting for them won't "move the table to the left."

>>>>>>>I ask you, if we elect a candidate on platform X, why should we then expect that candidate to govern on platform X+left (further to the left)? Candidates tend to stick with the strategy that got them elected. Repugs are smart; they do the work on the ground to move public opinion their way, then they are able to elect candidates who are more to their base's liking. Dems are trying to put the cart before the horse. They think they can elect candidates who would rather die than be called liberal, and they imagine that these people are going to move left *after* they get elected.


There's a good reason Bushco* will do nothing to alienate the evangelical Xtian loony right -- they show up on election days and hold his feet to the fire in between. We should try it sometime.

>>>>>>They show up *because* repugs deliver. Remember what happened to Jimmy carter? They dumped him because he wasn't carrying their water, and they found themselves a candidate who would. (May he rest in peace).


Reply:
That's (#1) just unfair. Whether he thought the war was wrong or right before he left, several hundred thousand working-class kids in this country had no such luxury to decide, and unlike nearly every other person of similar social privilege in our current governing elite, Kerry enlisted, fought, and spilled his own blue blood. He made a principled and honorable decision to fight,

>>>>>>No!!!!!! The war was wrong!!!!!! If a person was drafted, that's one thing, but to *choose* to go join a losing, immoral war; that is a big mistake, and individual acts of heroism do not change that. Take the case of our civil war - no doubt many southern soldiers fought honorably and valiently, and sacrificed greatly; but the cause they were fighting for was wrong!, therefore no one should have *volunteered* to fight on behalf of that cause. People have got to think about what they are doing, not just rush blindly in with the rest of the herd!! I'm sorry, but i think that there is a real worship of war in this country (and a few others), and it makes it very hard to offer completely rational and necessary criticism of it. That's part of what got us into the present war.

As for 2, no, my scholarly work (on American working-class music, culture and politics) leads me inexorably to the conclusion that the American left makes its biggest mistake when it puts on elitist airs and acts smarter than average working-class people. Which in fact is the basis for my respect for what Kerry did in Vietnam, as discussed above.

>>>>>OMG!!!! (Sorry, i'm getting a little agitated here. :) ) What the heck are people (left or right) supposed to do when the see America entering in to a mistaken war? Pretend they don't see it and say "Praise god and pass the ammunition"???? (or whatever that expression is). No way. Talk about throwing in the towel.



Clinton's almost-fatal flaw as a candidate was his avoidance of the draft, made both worse and better by the fact that he actually came from humble origins. Damn, was he charismatic, though. So he got it over. Bush* and co. sell, as we all know, a faux patriotic militarism rooted in cyncism and belied by their own lack of service.

>>>>>>I don't know why clinton avoided the draft, but you know, the war was wrong, and as i said before, IMO, that fact takes precedence over the virtue of 'service,' so i definitely don't hold anything against Clinton. If i was drafted into a war that i believed was wrong, i suspect i'd be packing my bags for canada. I could not and would not suspend my conscience in the name of service; and if there were to be a judgement day (which of course we both know there won't be :) ), the judgement would come down on my head, and my head alone. Uncle Sam could not bear my guilt.

Reply:
It's not only that Dems are weak. The right and its patrons in the corporate and media elites are very, very strong, and ruthless. And I keep coming back to the question: who do you have in mind whose stronger and a better salesperson and, by the way, on the ballot in about 5 months? How on earth can we win this without running to the middle, the way *every* national election has been won in modern history?

>>>>>>>>Never said we can't get/don't need the middle. I think dems are right on most issues, and polls show that most americans agree with us; that's why we need dems out there standing up for us, not rolling over for the Rove slander machine.

Reply:
Gotta call a pipe dream a pipe dream ( :. A future "leftward revolution of public thought" at the grass roots? You must live in South Dakota, in a little house on the prairie without access to major media. ( ; How on earth, in practical terms, is that going to happen without a decent run of progressive administrations and congresses that can show results in improving conditions of existence for American voters? Public opinion neither forms nor operates in a vacuum from the day-to-day sausage-making muck of real political work. The table ain't in Siberia. It's in the Oval Office, and unless we can take a seat at the head of it, we're REALLY going to be in political Siberia. Captain, the ship is tilting right. Forget the damn iceberg. We already hit it.

>>>>>>Ohhhh, oh contraire, mon frere; or should i say, bal9ks, axy. (pardon my french and my transliteration). It is the realest of realities. Contrary to what campaign billboards say, politicians do not lead, they follow. Public opinion always comes first. The "table" is right here in my little town, and on your front steps, and at the workplace water cooler, and so on and so on. Unfortunately, the media largely forms public opinion, then public opinion forms political opinion. We have got to get control of the news media, but in the meantime, i am trying to change one mind at a a time.



To suggest that I would do anything but resist such monsters with all my might and by every available means is really quite insulting.

>>>>>>I was not suggesting any such thing; i was pointing to the error in your logic, i.e., that choosing the lesser of two evils is an all-occaission election strategy.

I happen to be a passionate atheist, believing that God has been the source of more trouble than good in this world since day 1. But it must be something about atheism, since like you I have a lifelong fascination with religion, and (ironically), a respect for some kinds of truly religious people. Amidst all the Arab and Muslim bashing of the last few years, Americans have not heard much in defense of what is truly wondrous about Arabic art, science, poetry, music, and the basic earthly goodness of the Koran simply as a "guide to living ethically."

>>>>>>Well, there's good in both the bible and the quran, but there's also a whole lotta bad. In the big three traditions, the words of jesus are what i most agree with.


Most Muslims I know, like most people I know, are basically good. My fantasy is that one day we will be able to creat a country, perhaps on another planet, called Fanatica, where all the idealists and never-yielders can live and tear each other to shreds and leave decent, normal human beings in peace.

>>>>>>I don't think 'idealism' is the problem per se; i think it is the *willingness to use violence* to force one's ideals on others that is the problem. That is why i am such a strong proponent of using the most careful, studied judgement before committing our troops to war. There's no free lunch, and there's no free violence.


Optimism is our only option. Leaving "cold turkey" will lead to a bloodbath, and we will be (correctly) held accountable for that by the entire world.

>>>>It's *already* a blood bath. No one can say for sure what will happen, my guess is that we're going to declare victory and bail pretty soon anyway, so we'll find out.

Later.