|
Edited on Sat Aug-14-04 03:35 PM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
With something like fifty years of assassinations and mysterious accidents to people who threatened the power and wealth of at least a certain coterie of Republican plutocrats among the top 1%, is it not likely that Kerry is simply being prudent enough to say as little as possible on certain "hot" topics (in terms of the said coterie and their aims and objectives), until he is president? Indeed, Roosevelt only avoided being the victim of a coup, thanks to the heroic integrity of the retired marine general, Smedley Butler.
Bear in mind that, although the invasion of Iraq is naked imperialism, a more subtle form of imperialism has been very "successfully"(!) prosecuted by the US for much longer than fifty years - and that, under the aegis of both parties. True many of its chief beneficiaries among the 1% must be aghast at the Iraq debacle, but bear in mind that many billions already have been committed/squandered there and many airfields will already have been built or work is currently in progress.
My own feeling is that those bases will be simply untenable, whatever the economic losses and "face" lost, and that Kerry either believes as much now, or will quickly come to do so. I think he will have to make an alliance with a nation that is currently anathema, just to withdraw from Iraq without a total loss of face. Even with all the Allies.
But be that as it may, the point I am making is that there are somethings that are simply too "holy" to Mammon, to speak about at this stage. It would be like waving a clove of garlic at a vampire. It's surely why specific terms such as "protectionism", "anti-globalisation", etc, have been avoided by Kerry and Edwards, when they would be sure-fire winners, if it were only the electorate that had to be factored into the equation.
After a landslide victory, many other things seem likely to become possible. Mind you, Kerry and Edwards *have* spoken about job saving, the creation of well-paid manufacturing jobs and stopping the deliberate hemorrhaging of jobs abroad - all of which evidently entail an appropriate degree of protectionism. It really would be another "New Deal", if carried through.
If so, the world will have every reason to be jubilant, and the far right everywhere in the West will be under pressure to renounce open-ended globalisation. So, I applaud the reticence of Kerry and Edwards on certain matters, at the present time.
|