Why I Won't Vote Democratic in 2004

[durutti]

A few months ago, I would've said that I'm voting for whomever wins the Democratic nomination in 2004. I've since reconsidered.

The U.S. is pretty much a one-party state. We have two factions of the Business Party. There are differences between Democrats and Republicans, but they're small differences -- especially in comparison to the differences between parties in other democratic states.

The Democratic Party has never been the "party of the people". It began as the party of Southern agricultural wealth; it competed against the party of Northern industrial wealth. It continued this way until the Great Depression, when significant sections of the party were won over to liberalism.

However, it's easy to overestimate this turn. Large parts of the party remained as the always had been. And the "liberal" New Deal reforms were themselves not intended to change the system, but to preserve it. At the time, Socialists actually won seats in Congress; membership in radical parties was increasing exponentially. The labor movement was becoming more powerful. The New Deal reforms served to pacify these tendencies.

The labor movement was also co-opted. The bosses of the AFL-CIO became collaborators with the bosses. In addition, they campaigned against immigrants and espoused a disgusting racism.

After World War II, Democratic "liberals" became avid Cold Warriors. The union bureaucrats stood 100 percent behind them.

In the 1970s, the Democratic Party began to drift further to the right, gradually becoming more supportive of neoliberal "globalization". Later, the Dems would adopt welfare "reform" and other cuts in social spending as pet issues.

What is the Democratic Party today? The party of capital punishment, more cops and more prisons, the drug war, NAFTA, WTO, FTAA, GATT, MAI, the Kosovo war, the Iraq war, the bombing of Sudan pharmaceuticals plants, welfare "reform", HMO empowerment, the PATRIOT Act, gargantuan military spending, and "compromise" with the lunacy of the hard right.

Why the rightward shift in the Democratic Party? There are a number of reasons. For one, in order to compete with the GOP, the Democratic Party has increasingly had to rely on corporate contributions and wealthy candidates. The consolidation of the corporate media has created an effective propaganda machine for the rich.

But even if we could successfully implement comprehensive campaign finance reform, and even if we could break up the media giants, it would mean little. In a capitalist society, the employing class has the most power, by definition.

What I mean by this statement is that if confronted with reform proposals they disapprove of, capitalists would merely have to disinvest, either refusing to invest at all or investing in another country.

This tactic has been employed successfully by capitalists in Latin America, and also in Scandinavia, where such "capital strikes" were employed to dismantle the established welfare states.

In summary, electoralism is a dead end. It cannot be successful. Nothing short of social revolution can alter our current course.

Is there any point in voting or running for office at all, then? Yes. Campaigning for office and voting for candidates should not be considered a means to affect change; but rather a means to popularize marginalized views. When leftist candidates run for office, when they give newspaper interviews, when they appear at debates -- they're exposing people to views that normally aren't seriously considered. And when people vote for them, it forces some recognition of those views.

With all that said, I'm endorsing Walt Brown of the Socialist Party USA for President in 2004.

Please don't flame me.

[dodger501]

1. No, no flame but . . .

Same argument to not vote for Nader. Build your base from the ground up, at the local level. Don't go for the whole enchilada right off the bat. You have hearts and minds to win, first.

[joeybee12]

2. Well then welcome to 1984, 20 years later

[durutti]

4. How do you figure?

That's really an emotional argument. I have no reason to believe that a Democratic President would have done things differently, or will do things differently.

Most Democrats supported the USA PATRIOT Act. Most Democrats support the war on Iraq.

A Democrat got us into World War I. A Democrat interned Japanese Americans. A Democrat escalated the Vietnam War. The class interests are the same.

[joeybee12]

7. For one thing, I believe if Al Gore had been inaugurated (he was elected,

after all, but just couldn't quite get to the next logical step) 9-11 would not have happened.

We had an idiot asleep at the wheel--do you really want more of that so that they can ram more s**t down our throats as an excuse??????????

[The Zanti Regent]

45. Tell this to my nephew

My nephew lays in Walter Reed, paralyzed from the neck down by an Iraqui bullet.

Bush sent him there.

Al Gore would NOT have sent him there.

He's 23 years old. His life is ruined thanks to people like you.

GO ahead and throw your vote away in 2004 and help elect Bush so he can cut my nephew's VA benefits. Thanks for nothing!

[durutti]

47. No...

Bush didn't send him there. The ruling class of this country sent him there. Both Bush and Gore are members of that class.

[Clark Can WIN]

170. Tell yourself that if you like " The ruling class of this country sent hi"

But it's total bullshit. President Gore would never have swallowed the pax americana crap. We wouldn't be there.

[bluestateguy]

176. What does he care?

It's not like he and his like are going to suffer under King George II.

I saw this over and over again in 2000: overprivilged college kids and suburbanites on some silly journey of "self-discovery" in life. Many had trust funds, good paying jobs and were almost all white, exactly the people who would suffer the least in the Bush Administration. They get to feel good about themselves for making a "statement", while others have to suffer for the next 4 years.

[durutti]

187. What a joke.

First of all, as I said before, I'm just the age to be drafted. So if Bush gets reelected, there's a good chance I'll suffer for it.

Secondly, I grew up in a trailer park. I am in college, but only thanks to a scholarship and student loans.

Oops, I'm sorry! If I disagree with you, I MUST be a rich suburbanite with no real world experience! Sorry to burst your bubble.

[bluestateguy]

168. Thank You

These people must understand that their symbolic, bourgeoise crusades will have real world consequences for real people who cannot afford the luxury of voting for a "pure" candidate.

[toddzilla]

3. it's called baby steps...

why not just vote republican, or better yet, just vote for your favorite arms manufacturer.

[starroute]

38. No, it's called going backwards, just not quite as fast

The last time I thought this country was going forward was in the early-mid 70's, when a certain amount of environmental legislation was being passed and when Watergate led to more controls on the CIA, freedom of information, etc.

Since then, nothing at all positive has come out of the federal government, and many things I value have been consistently hacked away. The only difference between Democratic and Republican administrations has been that the process is somewhat slower under Democrats.

For at least 20 years, I have been arguing with my husband that it is still worth voting for Democrats as a form of damage control. But damage control only matters if you have hopes of eventually turning things around within the existing system, and I no longer have any such hope. I may still vote for the Democratic candidate in 2004, but it will be only because Bush scares the shit out of me -- not because I expect any actual change to come of it.

I think durutti's analysis strikes to the heart of the matter: as long as corporations have ultimate power over our society, so-called electoral democracy can only be a farce. We citizens are in roughly the position of a high school student government -- we may get to choose the color of the prom decorations, but all the real decisions are out of our control.

However, I've never able to get seriously enthusiastic about socialism. Putting that much power in the hands of the government seems risky to me. I'd rather start by disenfranchising the corporations -- take away their personhood, force them to be primarily answerable to their local communities (in human and environmental terms) rather than to management and shareholders, put creative work on an open source basis instead of a personal-profit basis. But none of that will ever be possible within an electoral system that the corporations themselves control. One way or another, it's going to have to come from outside.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. by your own words, you should be a Democrat and vote for Kucinich

"Campaigning for office and voting for candidates should not be considered a means to affect change; but rather a means to popularize marginalized views. When leftist candidates run for office, when they give newspaper interviews, when they appear at debates -- they're exposing people to views that normally aren't seriously considered. And when people vote for them, it forces some recognition of those views."

If that is your criteria, you would be better of registering as a Democrat and voting for Kucinich in the primary. Now Kucinich is not a socialist, and if you wanted to support the Socialist candidate in the general election I can't stop you. But if you are interested in getting marginalized views attention and force recongition of the votes of leftists, that's the most obvious strategy.

The two party system is not going away, instead of wasting time and money on a third party, we should be forming a voting block inside one of the offical parties. That way you can make an ideological stand AND actually gain some power. At the least a left block in the Dem party could discourage hard core right privatizers from winning a Dem primary.

[durutti]

15. A Few Qualifications

First of all, I'd probably be better off voting for Sharpton since he's always been pro-choice, opposed the drug war, and does not currently support a constitutional amendemnt prohibiting flag-burning.

The problem with voting for a Democrat is that the Democratic Party is a bourgeois party. It was founded by the wealthy, is led by the wealthy, and is funded by the wealthy. As I said, the Democrats are just on faction of the same party. If I vote for a Democrat, I am voting for the status quo.

The U.S. labor movement is unique in that it has never successfully formed its own party. Although many labor parties in other countries have experienced a rightward shift (much like the Democrats), they are still labor parties; they still derive most of their funding and leadership from the working class. The Democrats do not.

The Democratic Party represents an illusory alliance between the working class and the ruling class. By voting for the Democratic Party, we're furthering that illusory perception, which is ultimately counterproductive.

The political independece of the working class is a must.

[wheresthemind]

23. Kucinich is no fraud...

Kucinich has the best labor record in the race... Kucinich also grew up dirt poor...

Unless you create a party... you'll never find a PERFECT politician, I think Dennis is about as good as it gets!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

33. your class analysis is seriously out of date

"The problem with voting for a Democrat is that the Democratic Party is a bourgeois party. It was founded by the wealthy, is led by the wealthy, and is funded by the wealthy."

Yes, and America is a petty bourgeois country, and you are mostly likely bourgeois yourself. Which party has the most proles and ethnic minorities as members, the Democratic party or the Socialist party or the Green party? If college educated bourgeois want to show solidarity with the working class, why not join the party they are in?

"The Democratic Party represents an illusory alliance between the working class and the ruling class."

Of course, although it's a real alliance when it comes to social issues and civil rights.

"By voting for the Democratic Party, we're furthering that illusory perception, which is ultimately counterproductive."

No, by pretending that third parties are anything but a distraction in electoral politics is an illusory perception and is very counterproductive. Third parties are not official, they are not going to be allowed to win, and they are a waste of time. In a more totalitarian country they would just be illegal, here in America the rich want you to waste your time. What they don't want you to do is join the Democratic party and fight there, where it counts.

[durutti]

44. Oh, geez...

Yes, and America is a petty bourgeois country, and you are mostly likely bourgeois yourself.

The term "bourgeois" refers exclusively to people who own enough capital to live off. I don't, and neither does 80 percent of the population. At least have some familiarity with these terms before you decide to mock them.

Which party has the most proles and ethnic minorities as members, the Democratic party or the Socialist party or the Green party? If college educated bourgeois want to show solidarity with the working class, why not join the party they are in?

They aren't "in" any party. Most of the poor don't vote. There are more members of the working class and racial and ethnic minorities in the GOP than in the Socialist Party, I'm sure; does that mean that the GOP's program would be better for them? Of course not.

A socialist party, by definition, is a party that wants to elevate the working class to the position of a ruling class in the United States. A socialist program is objectively in the interest of the working class. A program that treats the interests of the working class and the employing class as interchangeable is not.

They don't want me to join the Democratic Party? What a laugh. Gephardt, Kucinich, and Sharpton are the only candidates who weren't born with silver spoons in their mouths. For a party they despise, the rich sure contribute an awful lot of money to the DNC.

[Clark Can WIN]

182. Zzzzzaaamp! Thank you for playing, your answer is incorrect

Main Entry: 1bour·geois
Pronunciation: 'burzh-"wä also 'buzh- or 'büzh- or burzh-'
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French borjois, from borc
Date: circa 1565
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the townsman or of the social middle class
2 : marked by a concern for material interests and respectability and a tendency toward mediocrity
3 : dominated by commercial and industrial interests : CAPITALISTIC


"Gephardt, Kucinich, and Sharpton are the only candidates who weren't born with silver spoons in their mouths"

Wrong again. Edwards and Clark both came from humble beginnigs.

[durutti]

190. Obviously

I'm referring to the term as socialists have traditionally used it, not a dictionary definition.

[Clark Can WIN]

228. Obviously

Your versions of reality morph to accomodate your superego


aka............... horse hiney.

[camero]

149. actually, his analysis is right on

The Dems have never put a working class person up as a candidate for president. They may have had humble beginnings(some of them) but when they reach the office, they are well established among the upper class.

And the Dems have had a very rightward shift since Carter. Not to take away from anything he has done out of office, but he effectively started the deregulation of business.

If the Dems want to be a real alternative, they should nominate someone who is working class right now. Our views are sorely missing and are generally just given lip service.

[theemu]

185. Oh Jesus Christ.

In order to win an election in America, you need to be able to afford to campaign. Only those people who, either through family money or personal success, have money, can afford to take the time out to campaign on a national level. Who in the working class has enough political experience and name recognition to run for president? No one.

Next time, please give us an idea that doesn't read like a college op-ed page.

[camero]

221. If you want to deny the truth, go right ahead.

But you're not helping to make our country any better by just picking up the crumbs they give you.

So you wanna change the system? First, go to all public financing. Second, Change the rules to where a candidate only needs 1% of registered voters voting for him or her to get federal financing.

That being said, Dems and repubs will in no way go for this because they have such a monopoly on the system, but with enough support, it could happen.

Look, we've been debating these things since the Magna Carta. The rich will never do what is in our interests, so why not give it a shot? It certainly can't be any worse than it is now.

Or do you benefit by this system? I know I don't. Not when the game is rigged worse than the stock market.

[WillyBrandt]

6. I will share your tender concerns and reasoned analysis

with the families of soldiers that will be shot in the face, have their limbs hacked off, go crazy, become impoverished, and have their souls blackened with the acts they were ordered to committ--should Bush be in power in 2005.

No doubt your subtle reasoning will make it clear to them that the state of affairs where their child is still is alive is just "the lesser of two evils" and isn't worth bothering with.

No doubt your sense of responsibility towards philosophic principle and dialectical understanding trumps the need to deaden the march towards endless war.

When it's conflict between the blood of others and the conceits of the comfortable, surely the latter must prevail.

[NNN0LHI]

20. May I add to your astute analysis?

...and the horse durutti rode in on too.

Don

[durutti]

22. Really?

If you really care about the lives of these soldiers and their families (and I'm sure you do, as you should), you should want to do something that will genuinely change things, if not immediately then ultimately. Voting for a Democrat will change nothing.

Review the past records of Democrats. Have they been significantly less bloody than those of Republicans? No.

A Democrat decided to escalate the war in Vietnam. And most Democrats today support the war on Iraq.

There's absolutely no reason to believe a Democrat won't start any new wars.

[WillyBrandt]

30. Logic-chopping the blood away

This is serious shit. We're not talking about the eternal essence of the Democratic party, or which one has a more glorious history, or whatever.

We're talking about which choice at the voting booth will get fewer people killed. My actions--your actions--all of our actions--on election day will have a direct causal bearing on the number of dead, blind, amputee, and mentally disturbed soldiers we will be seeing in the months and years following Jan 2005.

"There's absolutely no reason to believe a Democrat won't start any new wars."

Fair enough. We are not electing a pacifit, no matter what. But there is every reason to believe that who we elect will have a direct bearing on how soldiers are treated and how they are used. Do you seriously think that a Democrat, perhaps excepting Lieberman, will go around toppling Middle Eastern states if elected in 2004? Do you think that they will go denying them medical care, and the basic decency owed to those uniform?

This is no fucking joke. Kids are getting fucking killed for nothing, and you're exploring an epiphany about the Way of Right for American politics. What nonsense.

You're indulging sophistry and soldiers are dying. Do what you will, but don't pretend there's any moral merit in it. Have your purity: it can be afforded, since others will pay the price.

[durutti]

42. I'm Draft Age

So I may well have to "pay the price".

Yes, I believe there's a good chance a Democrat would engage in further wars in the Middle East. Even though the Democrats aren't as directly influenced by neoconservative ideologues, they are subject to scrutiny by the corporate media and the Republicans in Congress. They will be demonized until they're pushed into war.

[WillyBrandt]

144. I'm draft age too, buddy

Don't rope me into your stupidity. There is no support for this: "Yes, I believe there's a good chance a Democrat would engage in further wars in the Middle East."

That's pure assertion. Lieberman, maybe. But there's no reason to say that about anyone else. Remember that they tried to get Clinton to invade Iraq very intently and that didn't work out. Gore spoke out against the war before and after.

Clark, for instance, has spoken out against PNAC by name, and is absolutely alarmed at the prospect of more wars in the ME. Dean has spent a lot of time talking about the peace process. There's a reason the neocons hate the Dem candidates: they want more war, and the Dems aren't interested in giving them that. Moreover, it's far easier to push for war from the top down than from the bottom up: the political pressure for war from the nuts to a Dem president wouldn't tip the scales. The pressure from a second-termed Bush to the nation could quite well lead to American soldiers in Damascus.

Are the differences as stark and bright as you'd want? Perhaps not. But they are there and they are extremely important. People will be killed and saved because of these differences.

[durutti]

148. If a politician says it, it must be true!

Clinton didn't invade Iraq for reasons I've outlined elsewhere. He did bomb Kosovo -- not to stop ethnic cleansing (it actually provoked it), but to protect the credibility of NATO.

Clinton has supported the war on Iraq, as have most Democrats. Clinton is a leading member of the DLC, which has supported the war from the beginning.

[WillyBrandt]

151. If a politician says it, it must be false

Alright, fine. Nothing is addicitive as a false idea: keep thinking that the Dems and the GOP are identical on questions of war and peace.

And when the next Arab country is evaded, be sure to get home by 8pm, make some popcorn and watch Fox. You'll enjoy the show.

(By the way, speaking of Kosovo: have you read Samantha Power's A Problem From Hell? Next time you pooh-pooh the (sporadic) fight against genocide, the words within it would be good to remember.)

[durutti]

162. Kosovo

There was no genocide in Kosovo. There was a civil war that involved many killings of innocent people perpetrated both by the corrupt Milosevic regime and the drug-running gangsters of the KLA.

The bombing did nothing to halt the killings. Rather, it intensified them. Hundreds -- maybe thousands -- now dead would be living if not for Clinton's bombing.

The proposal that was on the table before the bombing -- Russian mediation and peacekeeping, plus autonomy for Kosovo -- was completely reasonable, and would've resulted in far less bloodshed.

And of course, when the war ended and the Albanians brutally slaughtered Gypsies and Serbs, Clinton uttered not a word.

[WillyBrandt]

165. We're done

"The bombing did nothing to halt the killings. Rather, it intensified them. Hundreds -- maybe thousands -- now dead would be living if not for Clinton's bombing."

You don't know whereof you speak. Hundreds--or thousands. You're off by orders of magnitude. No point in continuing this further.

[WillyBrandt]

37. "Not immediately but ultimately"

Another thing: 'If you really care about the lives of these soldiers and their families (and I'm sure you do, as you should), you should want to do something that will genuinely change things, if not immediately then ultimately.'

I'm sorry, Mrs. Smith, that your son died in Mr. Bush's Syrian War, but we're concerned with genuine, ultimate changes, not short-term immediate ones. His memory lives on in the Socialist Party.

[alarimer]

62. wrong

Voting for a Democrat will at least get rid of Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, and all those PNACers.

[durutti]

70. So instead...

The PNACers can go on FOX News and CNN and convince the public that the Democratic President isn't doing enough to fight terrorism. And eventually, that President will be pressured into starting a new war.

[dawgman]

43. What candidate has said that anything would be different under them?

Dean will leave the troops there so would Clark and Kerry. So what's the difference?

[RapidCreek]

218. Yea he should vote for one of the Dems...

who proudly backed Bush in his march to war and to this day proudly defend that backing. Tell me, how are they different than he is? The Dems have made themselves the lesser of two evils....recognizing that state of affairs does not create it. You can stick your head in a defensive Democrat hole all you want...you'er still gonna get kicked in the ass.

RC

[slackdude]

8. Lesser of two evils

As much as I would love to see a socialist party president, we all know that's not going to happen any time soon. Sure, the democratic party desperately needs a major wakeup call on the issues and sure, they have as much history of ugliness as anyone else involved in politics, but they're the only viable alternative to the republicans who are without any doubt a whole lot worse. Let's take care of getting rid of Bush by any means necessary, and then work on reforming the democratic party from the ground up.

[buff2]

19. I agree with you Slack......Get rid of the idiot in thief and thugs

The most important thing on the agenda is getting rid of that horrible facist nazi bunch that has ran wild trying to destroy everything in their path. These corrupt assoids have GOT TO GO!

[durutti]

25. Worse, yes...

But a lot worse? I don't think so.

[slackdude]

27. Think about it

When was the last time a democrat launched a full on unprovoked war against the wishes of the global community and then gave no-bid contracts to their closest friends? How is that anything short of a whole lot worse than the worst the dems have had to offer? Seriously.

[durutti]

49. Well...

Before 9/11, no one could've mustered the public support required to do such a thing.

"Terrorism" is the new Communism. It serves to justify imperialist adventures.

That said, we can certainly see a glaring example of a Democrat using Communism to justify imperialism.

[slackdude]

58. True, but...

The terror excuse in the case of the Iraq war seems much flimsier than any redbaiting I've seen.

[durutti]

61. So?

So they'll go after Iran instead. Or maybe Syria. Hell, maybe even Venezuela. The end result is the same.

[slackdude]

128. So what's your solution?

Third parties have been trying to offer an alternative to this for years but the odds are stacked too far against them to have any success. Short of full on revolution, what can break the grip that the two big corporate parties have?

[durutti]

150. Exactly!

There seems to be a big misunderstanding of what I'm saying.

I'm not interested in electing third parties with the intention of actually changing things. I'm interested in supporting and voting for third parties that have a socialist agenda because they're introducing radical ideas; they serve to convince people that there is an alternative to the current system.

You're right than nothing short of revolution will get us out of the mess we're in. And revolution is what I advocate.

[slackdude]

166. I can dig it

But I'm still going to vote for anyone who can beat Bush this time around.

[JailBush]

9. My Two Cents

"In summary, electoralism is a dead end. It cannot be successful. Nothing short of social revolution can alter our current course."

I think that's NEARLY the truth, but it's kind of defeatish.

"Is there any point in voting or running for office at all, then? Yes. Campaigning for office and voting for candidates should not be considered a means to affect change; but rather a means to popularize marginalized views."

I agree with that - campaigns are a means of educating the public and rallying allies. I've run for public office three times, and I share your disgust with the system; it's very nearly useless. Unfortunately, there's NO OTHER WAY. We have no choice but take back the election system - and there are many good strategies that aren't being utilized.

I share your contempt for the Democratic Party and I'm fascinated by the Socialist movement - but does the current Socialist Party really have the answers? All you need to do is tell me what their education platform is.

[durutti]

26. It doesn't have all the answers.

Not nearly. As I said, only social revolution will solve our problems. But the SPUSA agenda is at least one of opposition to the dominant paradigm -- of opposition to capitalism.

[WilliamPitt]

10. Just finished 'People's History of the United States,' eh?

Good book.

[JanMichael]

13. It IS a good book.

This is interesting to me. I'm an admitted SP-USA member (And Registered Democrat out of necessity) who will most likely not vote SP-USA this time (Nor have I ever, I've only been involved for a little over a year. Bush I (I was naive)/Clinton/Clinton/Gore) around, I simply fear a second Bush term, it scares the shit out of me.

[wryter2000]

11. Then

Then, why not go on over to SocialistUnderground.com?

[durutti]

28. Because

This forum's supposed to be open to all progressives. I respect and welcome of the opinions of anyone who disagrees with me.

The world would be an awfully boring place if everyone disagreed with everyone else.

[childslibrarian]

12. Nader said there was no difference

Between Democrats and Repubs. We are at war, with a shattered economy and a party intent on taking apart all safety nets and giving the money to their rich friends....Yeah, NO DIFFERENCE!!!!

[ramapo]

16. Who helped the Repubs?

"We are at war, with a shattered economy and a party intent on taking apart all safety nets and giving the money to their rich friends."

You couldn't be more correct. This always pains me to say it but as we all know, the Republicans did not do this on their own. They got plenty of Democratic help. I cannot fault Nader.

There is a modicum of difference between the two groups, but what has gone on in this country, not during just the past three years but more like the past 20 or 30, has been all about monied-interests buying control of the government, Republicans and Democratics alikes.

[childslibrarian]

35. Yes, neither party is perfect

But there is a difference. We can't work for change until we get the Republicans out. Then we can confront the issues with party funding. But not if a war and a false emphasis on "defeating terrorism" is in the way. That is like a brick wall in front of any possible change. And a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the shrub.

[durutti]

32. I didn't say there's no difference.

I said that there isn't enough difference.

If a Democrat were in power, I'd say there's a 50 percent chance that we would've gone to war against some country (quite likely Iraq).

We would've had the recession anyway. The recovery would've been slightly smoother.

Democrats would be slashing the safety nets -- just like Clinton did.

And they'd be giving money to their rich friends, too, though probably not in the form of tax cuts.

[childslibrarian]

39. I disagree wirh your analysis

We would not be at war and we would not be dismantling the government safety nets. There is no reason to think Gore would have been doing either thing. For one thing, he had some knowledge of foreign policy...Unlike our present administration. This is a "Out of chaos comes order, thing right?" It's easier to dismantle everything rather than work within the system, right?

[durutti]

50. I Disagree

Gore certainly would be dismantling safety nets, just as Clinton did. Gore is a card-carrying New Democrat.

[ikojo]

93. I disagree when you say the US

would not be dismantling safety nets...Clinton championed and signed legislation to do away with welfare and called it welfare reform. This was a pet project of the pugs since I was a kid in the 1070s, I remember Chuck Findley (a pug from Peoria, Illinois) campaigning on workfare in the late 70s but it seemed too extreme then. Poor people are doing much worse after welfare reform than before.

Clinton also championed NAFTA and when the WTO came to Seattle he wasn't outside with the demonstrators (as was I and approx. 50 THOUSAND other working people), no he was INSIDE with the corporate rulers of the world.

More jobs are being sent overseas now than ever before.

To the Democratic party's defense, Clinton did have to do some serious arm twisting to get NAFTA passed but the fact that he was willing to spend so much political capital on that one issue told me who he REALLY worked for. This is the one issue that caused me to only vote for him in 1996 and not work on his campaign.

[Selwynn]

14. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Real change will only happen with small steps and slow progress. Real change won't be some instantaeous revolution, unless its bloody, which I don't want and wouldn't trust. It will be a war of attrition as we take two steps forward for every one step back. I want a country built on real progressive ideals too, but I also know that running off to the extreme end when the country just isn't ready for it is actually doing more of a disservice to the country right now. There are some kinds of medicines where if they are not administered gradually they can kill the patient, and there are other medicines that won't be effective in one huge doses, but only in small doses over a long period of time as a patient builds it up in the system.

I am voting democrat because I believe to do anything else is to be drastically out of touch with what the country needs and how it can be acheived. The funny thing is, I agree with people who have more progessive, green, socialist points of view. But I also know what it takes to actually have a country that embraces those ideas, and in my opinion I believe I do more to acheive those long term goals by voting democrat this year than you will by voting for someone else this year.

You've got to keep your eye on the prize.

[durutti]

51. Well...

I've just outlined the reasons why electoralism is a dead end. I've yet to see anyone on this forum refute any of those points.

Yes, a revolution would necessarily be bloody. But the alternatives -- social breakdown, nuclear war, environmental destruction -- are much worse.

[Selwynn]

209. I disagree that the alternatives are worse...

..and we are at a classic impasse. You keep mentioning how no one has "refuted" your argument, but you also keep missing one very important point: it is possible to agree on your premises yet disagree with your conclusion. That is what I have done. Oh sure I could quibble on minor points here or there. But why? I basically agree with your general premises. However, I disagree with your conclusion that therefore the best solution is to not vote for the Democratic candidate in 2004. I choose to work for within for change, because I believe that's where the most hope lies. You don't. I can accept that. Good luck to you, and there's the door.

[roguevalley]

17. Go ahead. It isn't like it matters if bush wins again. The world will not

survive another term of this man and his cronies. If
you don't love the world more than you feel offended,
then vote socialist. For me, I would vote for the
satanic party of bezeelzebub if it meant getting rid
of these people.

Oh, wait. That's the repug party's informal name.

[Tatiana]

18. You bring up many points that are valid concerns.

However, the greatest threat to America and the world at large at the moment is George Bush. He must be defeated.

We have to learn how to prioritize. Take care of the most important, most pressing things first... and getting Bush out of office is what we need to do.

Voting for any third party candidate, at this point in time, is just throwing your vote away. The person who wins the election of 2004 will be either a Republican or a Democrat.

Do you want Bush or somebody else?

When Bush is out of office, then we can go about electing true Representatives and Senators who will really represent our interests and not the interests of corporate America. Then we can enact legislation that repeals the Patriot Act, that reinforces FAIR trade, etc. None of this can be done, however, until Republicans and turncoat Democrats are voted out of office.

Don't let anger or frustration cause you to throw your vote away.

[eileen_d]

21. Well, exercise your right to vote

But personally I am for incremental change, lesser of two evils, all those cliches. I am convinced that there is too much at stake with the Bush administration, and voting to "popularize marginalized views" is a luxury we cannot afford.

You can't move this country to the left unless you turn it around, and that may look like standing still to some people -- but to me it's progress.

[zinsky]

I Completely Understand Your Frustration, But.....

we have to get George W. Bush and his cronies out of there, if we want any chance at all of changing the system.

The Dems have certainly made their share of mistakes. And the power of money is the corrupting influence that is ruining America.

Don't let them tell you that pouring money into the political machine is "free speech". It is bought-and-paid-for speech. If it were still "one man (or woman), one vote", then my opinion would mean as much as Richard Mellon-Scaife's. I think any fool can see that it does not. Only by taking big money out of the system and excluding corporations entirely from the political process (show me where in the Constitution it says they should have any say), will we recalim our government.

In this election, it truly is ABB - Anybody but Bush. Our country may not survive another four years of this clown!

zinsky

[AmericanDem]

24. this place is called DU

Democratic Underground. Why are you here?

[durutti]

53. I am a democrat.

"We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole." - from "About DU".

And besides, I am a democrat. A small-"d" democrat.

[Padraig18]

87. How is advocating Walt Brown for president...

... 'working with us'? Take this Socialist campaign crap to www.socialistunderground.com, why don't you?

I have alerted on this post, and the one in P&C from another Socialist also urging support for Walt Brown.

[durutti]

97. Waaaah!

I am willing to work with Democrats to acheive the "shared goals" of progressives. I believe that voting for a Democrat in 2004 will hinder rather than help in the acheivement of those goals. Again, I respect everyone's right to disagree with me, and welcome discussion and debate.

Last I checked, there were over 90 posts to this thread, so I'm sure the mods already know about it. Unlike you, they're not eager to crack down on the free exchange of ideas. If you're interested in a forum where all those who don't tow the party line are banned, I'd suggest you try Free Republic.

[ShaneGR]

138. How ridiculous is that??? MORE RIDICULOUS!

I am willing to work with Democrats to acheive the "shared goals" of progressives. I believe that voting for a Democrat in 2004 will hinder rather than help in the acheivement of those goals.


Green Party people said that in 2000. Look where it got us.

Like I said before, you sound JUST like Ralph Nader.

It's going to take you a long time to get to +1 again.

[durutti]

145. How is Nader responsible?

First of all, Gore won the election. The Supreme Court selected Bush.

Second of all, even if that wasn't the case, you can't blame Nader. Al Gore lost his own state, and many Democrats voted for Bush.

Furthermore, at least 25 percent of Nader voters were people who otherwise would not have voted at all.

[sujan]

72. yea why are you?

[mlawson]

29. What will you do when santorum runs for re-election??

Say that he is not MUCH worse than his Dem challenger, and then write in the name of someone who can't posibly win??????

Yeah, that will help a lot!!!

[ramapo]

31. Your analysis is correct but action is all wrong

You're just helping reelect Bush.

We all know Bush II is awful and that a sequel would be almost unimaginable, especially with Republican control of the Congress.

So I'll vote for ANY Democrat. I never liked Lieberman but wouldn't hesitate to vote for him.

I vote third-party in local elections or when I'm absolutely positive it won't matter. Just check how many votes go third-party. The game is rigged. There's NO CHANCE for a third-party candidate in about 99.x% of all races. I would've liked to have voted for Nader in 2000 because I was pretty pissed at Gore but was afraid that what did happen would happen. So Gore got my vote.

Your vote is needed in '04. Vote for a Socialist for Mayor not for President.

[demgrrrll]

34. Here is a good quote from Kushner for you to mull over, I believe he

nails it. "Listen, here's the thing about politics, It's not an expression of your probity and your fond dreams of some utopian future.
Progressive people constantly fail to get this."

[childslibrarian]

40. Thanks for that

words of sanity...

[Deja Q]

36. As I've said before:

Slow death or fast death?

Pukes will give a quick death.

Dems, it seems, will draw out the process.

I'm not even sure that a Green landslide would help (and, trust me, they're the only party who are 100% FOR THE PEOPLE. Though Kucinich and a few others won't care to corporate interests such as NAFTA, FTAA, et cetera...)

And the name "socialist" will scare non-thinking Americans off because they've been brainwashed and programmed. I've read enough of the Socialist agenda to know it's not all evil. But people associate the WORD "socialist" with "Commie Russia", "totalitarianism", and so on. Which is ironic since those in power seem to hate freedom more than the socialist and other fringe party movements!

And to all those who say "Welcome to 1984", we already live in that state! I'll be surprised if Election 2004 actually goes through, there are too many CREDIBLE scenarios where bush* can delay or cancel it.

[dobak]

41. Hope it feels good....

I don't understand the Socialists and Greens.

They are some of the most politically active, socially aware people in this country, yet they remain almost blissfully ignorant of political reality.

A GREEN OR SOCIALIST WILL NEVER WIN A MAJOR OFFICE UNLESS YOU START FROM THE GROUND UP

City Council, Mayor, State Legislature, etc...

Dear god people, read a f*cking book and learn from it. History is full of examples of 3rd party failures because they aimed for the top.

19th century Whigs
Socialists
Communist Party (U.S. version)
Reform Party
Bull Moose Party
Constitutional Party
Non-Partisan League
Green Party
etc..
etc..
etc..

Go to your local bookstore and buy "Party of the People: A History of the Democrats" by Jules Witcover.

You will see scores of examples of disenfranchised Democrats and Republicans who started a 3rd party and caused their original party to lose EVERY SINGLE TIME.

[durutti]

55. Again

I don't vote for any third party thinking that it's going to win. I vote for it to help disseminate radical ideas.

[dobak]

217. Disseminate your ideas some other way..

The media just ignores 3rd party candidates, so using them as a way to reach the masses is a futile effort.

Until the system is fixed, you gotta pick one of the two parties or your vote is wasted or is used against you.

[pop goes the weasel]

188. The Whigs

were a major party. They were the only significant opposition to the Jacksonian Democrats until 1854, when the Republicans emerged.

It's instructive to look at them. The only thing they had in common was a desire to break the Jacksonian's grip on national government. They did not succeed. Instead, they ended up shattered because they were freaking cowards who refused to confront the real issues of the day. The "radicals" amongst them became the Republicans, who did become successful.

The question Democrats face is, will our party follow the Whigs into obscurity?

[Prodemsouth]

46. Then you are voting for Bush, it is that simple, in this system.

You can vote for any minor-no chance to win party - but when the dust clears you have voted for W.

[adadem]

52. hit the nail on the head

and the nail in our coffin

[Q]

48. "Democratic "liberals" became avid Cold Warriors"

- I didn't need to read pass this to be able to disregard your whole post.

[durutti]

54. What?!

That's probably the least controversial thing in my post.

[OKNancy]

60. funny too, the Socialists USA

are anti-Communists. ( bringing up the term cold warriors) They also believe in change by voting not militant revolution.

[durutti]

65. Yes and No

First of all, "anti-Communist" and "Cold Warrior" are not the same thing. An anti-Communist merely doesn't want to adopt a Soviet-type system in his or her own country. A "Cold Warrior" supported the arms race and supported imperialism under the (usually false) guise of "fighting Communism".

The Socialist Party USA is today a multi-tenendencied organization that includes both social democrats and democratic socialists (as you mention above) as well as Trotskyists and others who are revolutionists.

It is true, though, that most SPUSA members are democratic socialists. Again, I'm not voting for the SPUSA because I agree entirely with their program. I'm voting for them because they will nonetheless challenge the dominant paradigm.

[ShaneGR]

94. EXACTLY

He doesn't really know what he's talking about.


Besides, a Dem on a stage advocating ANY kind of communist policy would destroy the party, and hand control of the country to the right, for at least 20 years.

[durutti]

116. I know quite well what I'm talking about.

Read my initial response.

Maybe you're content with emotional arguments. Maybe you're content to vote for Democrats and pretend you're making a difference. Maybe you're content to avoid any serious analysis of the issues at hand.

I'm not.

[Clark Can WIN]

230. You may have book "knowledge" on the subjects

I am in no way convinced that you have ANY grasp whatsoever of the actuall real world consequences of your ideological folly.

[slackdude]

69. Are you denying it?

Remember JFK? Big liberal. Big cold warrior (though not enough of one for the hardcore anticommunists who killed him, but that's another story). Same with LBJ.

[spooky3]

56. if you truly believe that there are only "small" differences

between Republicans and Democrats, I would encourage you to post your thoughts on a Republican board and see if the reaction is similar.

[durutti]

67. It's been done.

Most of them seem to be of the opinion that the GOP isn't conservative enough.

[Zorra]

57. Everyone must unite.

What you have just explained in your post is the very reason Hitler came to power. People and parties in Germany did not unite in order to stop Hitler, and if we don't unite, we will not stop shrub.

It was the communists who aided Hitler's the nazis rise to power in the 30's, and they later seriously regretted it when Hitler put them in prison the first chance he got.

Yeah, a lot of Dems have sold out. But please, please wait until shrub is gone to start voting third party. My children are depending on you to help prevent a fascist dictatorship.

The only candidate that can defeat shrub at this time is a Democrat, and you know it. Voting Socialist in 2004 will be senseless act of aiding a national suicide.

The safety and future of the world depends on stopping shrub in 2004. It does not get any more real than this.

[mlawson]

63. Many persons insist on almost 100% agreement

between their own views, and that of their candidate. If they do not get this, they typically 'vote their conscience', oblivious to whether that person has the slightest chance of winning. Indeed, winning is of far less importance, than making some sort of 'statement' on election day.

I can not comprehend this, but it appears to be true, and no amount of reasoning can get through it. But it does not seem that repukes and far RWers think this way; that is one reason that they WIN so often!

[cheryl l]

109. defeat shrub

I'm brand here and in fact my very frist message ever. Please excuse mis-spellings.

As Zorra wrote, <<<What you have just explained in your post is the very reason Hitler came to power. People and parties in Germany did not unite in order to stop Hitler, and if we don't unite, we will not stop shrub.>>>

Hitler came to power because the sensable,(Democraticly minded)kept silent in the beginning, thinking "they can't do that because, it's just not right". That's very simplified, but just about what happened in the beigining of Hitler's reign over Germany. Propaganda messages about Jews being a kin to rats determanded to ruin and degrade the moral culture, blood thirsty rats bent on destorying everthing.

"Provoking Fear" was the message. Bush is using the same technigues right now.

P.S. I'm not jewish, but I've been acussed of it because of my dark hair, brown eyes, and, "big nose". American Indian, French + lots more, but not Jewish. But ya can't have everthing, huh?

[Zhade]

131. Welcome to DU, cheryl!

[leesa]

59. Well, that's brilliant! Thanks for endorsing Bush!

It's one of the first times in years there are candidates that are not the standard Republican-lite and you fail to notice it. There are a few good Dem candidates that will work hard to chip away at this fascist nightmare the US has become. You expect your candidate, who will probably get 100 votes, is going to change it all overnight in a sweeping revolution??? How incredibly unrealistic is that? And you expect not to get flamed?

[w4rma]

64. Vote Republican then. Don't just go half way by voting for yourself. (n/t)

[solinvictus]

66. The American Voter

The American voter is like a woman who, like a butterfly, goes from one abusive relationship to another. With each election cycle, we hope that the candidate will be different for the better, but it rarely works out that way. We've been so abused over the years that we can't see the root of the problem; that the entire contest has been bought before we even cast the first vote. Money, not voters, is the driving force of our system. Each and every senator is nothing more than a shill for corporate money because if they were otherwise, they could not afford to run for office.

[Clark Can WIN]

233. That's just..........................silly

Take a break from the Kool-Aid.

[Yavin4]

68. If Bush Wins In 2004...

The neocons around him will see it as a mandate from the American people for the preemptive doctrine which will inevitably lead to further wars in the Middle East. To say that the Democrats will also preemptively invade Iran and Syria is utter nonsense. Remember these same neocons pestered Clinton to overthrow Iraq in 1998, and he rejected them.

So, your argument, that the Democrats will do the same, is dishonest.

[GreenArrow]

71. the "neocons"

don't really care whether they have a mandate or not. If they want to do something, they'll do it. Though they prefer public support, they know how to drum it up if need be, our circumvent it if required.

The Democrats won't unilaterally invade Syria etc.; they'll do it as part of a multinational coalition. End result will be the same.

[Yavin4]

75. Then Explain Why Clinton Didn't Overthrow Saddam

when the PNAC hounded him to do so.

[GreenArrow]

80. Clinton did what he needed to do

he was never a Dove. Daddy Bush didn't do it either.

[ShaneGR]

92. he was never a Dove

But he was never a rabid hawk, like Bush, either. Your analysis is no different than "You're either with us or against us." You are saying that Dems and Repugs are no different because they aren't for total piece and no corporations. It's ridiculous. This country couldn't survive without a strong military. Just as it couldn't survive without some corporations. But in moderation.

Bush doesn't get that.

Clinton did.

[durutti]

99. He couldn't get the popular support.

After 9/11, public opinion is more easily manipulated. At the time, we were between ideologies -- from fighting Commmunism to fighting terrorism. Today, we have an ideology of domination, so imperialism is easier to justify.

This is easily provable. One only needs to look at who made the decision to escalate the Vietnam War.

[GreenArrow]

108. He didn't need popular support

He enforced the sanctions, he continued the policy of regular bombings, flyovers etc. that kept Sadaam in check. The policy of regime change came to fruition during his presidency. See the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 . He would have had popular support. No one in this country likes Sadaam. Can you imagine the Republicans thwarting him on the issue of taking Sadaam out? He'd have needed a damn good reason, but they would hav gone along. Instead, he ensured that Sadaam was weak for when the time was ripe.

[durutti]

120. Disagree

While it's true that no one likes Saddam, that doesn't mean that people are willing to go to war over it. Bush had a hard time of making his case even after 9/11.

Clinton also would have had to deal with the issue of international support, just as Bush did.

[GreenArrow]

127. you might be right

But consider the foreign policy approach that BC would have taken as opposed to the strongarm approach that W used. Methinks Clinton's approach would have been more successful. But it's moot anyway.

[Tinoire]

214. Clinton was willing 2 start the war vs Iraq & tried 2 manuafacture consent

it didn't work. Enter Bush. Force the consent with 9-11. Presto, America can go after that oil which had been our plan all along.

Never forget that Clinton sanctioned and bombed Iraq daily, incessantly, for 8 years straight. Half a million children died but Madeline Albright declared that the price was worth it. I don't even know how many children were maimed and born deformed from 12 years worth of US aggression but you can see a few here: (warning, graphic)
http://www.firethistime.org/extremedeformities.htm

If we don't start facing these facts, there is no way we will ever change things and we will be no better than the freepers who rightfully point out our hypocrisy.

===============

Clinton team jeered during town hall

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Facing tough questions from America's heartland, the Clinton administration's foreign policy team tried to make the case Wednesday for U.S. military action against Iraq. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called Iraq's disputed weapons arsenal the "greatest security threat we face."

Speaking over persistent jeers at Ohio State University, Albright said President Clinton prefers a diplomatic way out of the crisis but stressed, "It must be a true, not a phony, solution."

Joining Albright on a red carpeted-stage in the center of a basketball arena were Defense Secretary William Cohen and National Security Adviser Samuel Berger. They were interrupted several times by chants from a noisy audience that included students as well as uniformed members of the military and veterans.

<snip>

Some of the protesters held aloft a banner that said, "No War," but one caller identifying himself as a U.S. soldier on duty in Germany said he supported Clinton's approach.

<snip>

When one questioner said as many as 100,000 Iraqi civilians could be killed in an attack, Albright replied, "I'm willing to make a bet that we care more about the Iraqi people than Saddam Hussein does."

<snip>

http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-980218-154...

------------------

Clinton Administration Officials Shouted Down
Dan Flynn

Clinton Administration officials attempting to make the case for military action against Iraq were shouted down at two Midwestern campuses in late February. Evoking memories of the 1960s, protestors jeered cabinet members with profanity and derisive chants.

At Ohio State University, a media-staged international "town-meeting" went sour when activists pelted government officials with obscenity-laced interruptions. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger were at times barely audible and incapable of completing sentences due to yells of "racist," "murderer," and "liar."

<snip>

A similar incident occurred at the University of Minnesota where Bill Richardson, United States ambassador to the United Nations, was prevented from addressing a casual breakfast gathering. "One-two-three-four, we don’t want your racist war," chanted a mob of anti-American protestors.

<snip>

http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1998/march_1998_...

------

Iraq rally at OSU backfires
Boos greet pleas to support attack

<snip>

But an audience of 5,000 loudly called - and cat-called - for both war and peace in a media event gone awry for the Clinton administration.

The security team - when they were allowed to speak - insisted that the United States will not be deterred from raining destruction on Iraq if leader Saddam Hussein, an ''armed and dangerous bully,'' insists on hiding and stockpiling chemical and biological weapons that threaten its neighbors.

<snip>

The meeting made for compelling TV during a live 90-minute international broadcast exclusively by CNN, but left moderators Bernard Shaw and Judy Woodruff periodically flustered as the three Clinton advisers faced repeated jeers.

Small but vocal groups of anti-war protesters unfurled banners and periodically were wrestled away from their seats by campus police as they continually interrupted the show with chants: ''1, 2, 3, 4, we don't want no racist war.''

An annoyed Ms. Albright fired back: ''I am really surprised some people find it necessary to defend the rights of Saddam Hussein.'' Clinton's media messengers clearly were caught unprepared for the unruly response and pointed questions.

<snip>

http://www.cincypost.com/news/1998/iraq021998.html

------------------------

The three Clinton Administration officials who participated in the OSU event — Albright, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, and Secretary of Defense William Cohen — are drawn from the CFR’s stable of pseudo-statesmen, and each of them dutifully recited the Establishment’s talking points regarding Saddam’s supposedly unique depravity. "Saddam Hussein, unlike any other leader, has used weapons of mass destruction even against his own people," insisted Albright. "In fact, he is a repeat offender." Berger claimed that Saddam has used chemical or biological weapons "ten times since 1983" and accused him of seeking "to create a safe haven for weapons of mass destruction." Cohen tremulously described Saddam’s CBW inventory, which includes VX — "a nerve agent so deadly a drop will kill" — and anthrax. As a visual aid Cohen asked CNN (which hosted the OSU event and carried it live worldwide) to display a heart-rending photograph of a dead mother and infant who had been killed in an Iraqi gas attack. "I call this ‘Madonna and Child, Saddam Hussein-style," Cohen melodramatically intoned.


<snip>

On May 12, 1996, the CBS television news program 60 Minutes featured an interview with Madeleine Albright. Asked about the estimated half-million Iraqi children who have died from disease and malnutrition as a result of the post-Gulf War UN embargo of Iraq, Albright blithely replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, is worth it." The "we" in question is the foreign policy establishment whom Albright has served for decades without so much as a visible tremor of moral discomfort — and Saddam Hussein, like Albright, is a loathsome instrument of that elite.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1998/vo14no07/vo14no0...

[TXDemGal]

73. I won't flame you

But at the same time, I'll say I hope very few are thinking (and voting) like you.

Especially in this time and place, politics is not some pie-in-the-sky utopian vision. I thought most people learned that in '00 with the Nader debacle. Guess not.

[durutti]

102. Don't blame Nader.

I didn't support Nader and I generally don't support the Green Party. But you can't blame Nader for the Democrats' failure in 2000. Al Gore lost his own state.

[Zhade]

133. You're both missing the point. Bush STOLE the election.

Neither Nader, nor Gore himself, lost Gore the election. It was stolen.

Come on. You KNOW this, right?

[TXDemGal]

155. Yes, I know BushCo stole it

And one of the reasons he was able to do so is because it was a close election. Throw away votes that went to Nader made it closer than it had to be. IMHO.

Durutti says below that s/he lives in Pennsylvania. Throwing away a vote on the Socialist candidate in a swing state like PA can make a difference. Just not the kind of difference s/he's hoping for.

[CWebster]

74. I don't blame you.

The irony is all the hostility and blame being directed your way from those who believe Clark is the anti-Bush. Clark who encourages or young to join up, talks about war and invasions as tactical failings and how we have fight the war on terrorism---which could be cover for wherever we want to send young men to die for American (corporate) interests.

Terrorism is all Bush talks about to the world, it would be progress to have a conversation with the world about how addressing underlying issues of terrorism would be the road to beating terrorism -rather than the use of military force which only breeds more terrorism as a consequence.

[Padraig18]

76. Mr. Bush thanks you for your vote!

[RetroLounge]

77. Yeah, whatever.

If this is your decision, then why are you here on DU?

All you will be doing is helping elect bush*.

Now go away...

[[e-mail]]

78. Yeah but

I understand why but Anything would be better then Bush right now.

[Zhade]

79. Always vote your conscience.

Ignoring one's conscience is one reason the system is so rotten.

And you're right - it is all about the Wealthy versus the Poor.

I will never flame a person for voting their conscience. To me, that is unAmerican.

[TXDemGal]

160. Vote your conscience in the Dem primary

Vote in the real world in November 2004.

[Padraig18]

81. Shouldn't this post be at www.socialistunderground.com?

This is democraticunderground.com, you know? Would you prostelytize for a fundy church in a synagogue?

[Terwilliger]

101. Politics is religion to you?

you should get counseling

[durutti]

106. Clever!

It's only been posted about 5 times so far...

[BeachBuckeye]

82. Idiotic analysis

So he'd rather have Bush? I don't think I've read such tripe before on this board.

[GreenArrow]

84. that's not what he said.

I can understand why you wouldn't want to give credence to his argument, certainly wasn't tripe.

[Padraig18]

89. He might have well have said it!

A vote for any candidate other than our party's nominee is a vote for *, mathematically; spin it however you like. He's 'the enemy' just as much as * is.

[GreenArrow]

96. your comment is not accurate

I voted for Nader in the 2000 Election. Bush won my state by more than 10 points. Nader got approximately 1 percent of the vote. Even if all Nader voters had chickened out and cast their votes for Gore, (and frankly I believe many potential Nader voters did just that, due to fear of Bush getting elected--I would have myself if Gore would have had ANY chance of getting elected here) Gore still would have had NO chance. My vote was cast for Nader and counted for Nader, not Bush or anyone else.

If the coming election brings a similar choice, I'll vote similarly. If the Democratic candidate has a good chance, I will probably vote for him, even though I may not like him. Bush is that bad.

[Padraig18]

110. Spin it how you like.

If it's not a vote FOR the Democratic nominee, it's a vote for SOMEONE ELSE--period. In our electoral system, that will men *.

[GreenArrow]

119. You can lead a horse to water...

use your head.

Under the scenario I described above, explain to me how it was a vote for George W. Bush? He recieved no benefit from it. Given Bush's margin of victory, a vote for Gore would have been irrelevant. He still would have lost, big, even if all the Nader voters had cast their votes for him.

[Terwilliger]

105. edited subject

Like you shouldn't want those people with you instead of against you. As much as you think it is anathema to think outside the box, it has to be done sometime.

[Padraig18]

112. Find those words.

I didn't say them.

[durutti]

107. My Lord...

Anyone who thinks strawmen arguments are exclusively the domain of the right need look no further than DU.

[durutti]

199. You sir

...are truly the Limbaugh of the left. You've not responded to any of the points I made in any post. You've only attacked with emotional arguments that have nothing to do with anything I've said.

[mitchum]

83. I'm a pragmatist, but you won't get any flames from me durutti

Your historical analysis is spot on (particularly concerning the true purpose of the New Deal) I am also SP-USA, but I am also willing to work for the lesser of two evils. Please ignore those posters who are telling you to go away, blah blah blah. I enjoy your reasoned posts.

mitchum

[Lydia Leftcoast]

85. Here's an alternative for you

Work within the Democratic party at least through 2004 with like-minded people. Getting rid of Bush is a priority, and if we don't, your Socialist Party may not be legal for much longer.

Once a Democrat is in the White House, you can start working to build the Socialist Party from the ground up.

[durutti]

111. You Misunderstand

I'm not particularly interested in building the Socialist Party or electing Socialists. I will vote for socialists in order to spread ideas. Upon taking office, Socialists would probably do no better than Democrats.

[WoodrowFan]

86. Then the Crmes of the repukes will be on your head as well

Every child that goes hungry, ever Iraqi civilian killed, every poor person who has no health care will be on your head starting in 2005 as much as they are on the heads of the freepers. Gee, glad you'll feel "pure" though, I guess THATS what is important, not actually HELPING people.

[ikojo]

88. EXCELLENT post!

Thank you for having the courage to post a brief history!

People forget that during the post Civil War Reconstruction period, the Democratic Party was the party of the Klan. Most southern Democratic leaders were also Klan members.

[Clark Can WIN]

204. Oh yipeee yaah! Rah rah rah!

Hating ourselves and rolling in every direction EXCEPT the White House will be SO PRODUCTIVE!!!!!!!!!

WHAT A GREAT PLAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At least we'll all have our smug self-rightous purity while people die.....................

[ShaneGR]

90. Bizarre, I'm endorsing Roy Moore of the Constitutional Party then

If you're gonna steal votes away from the left getting this government back, I'm gonna steal votes away from the right keeping control.

Your analysis that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats is FAULTY at best. Answer this question, how different would a Gore Administration have been than a Bush Administration? If you answer the same than you're clearly smoking some potent wacky-tobaccy.... can I have some?

[durutti]

114. Another Strawman

I didn't say that there's no difference. I said that there's not enough of a difference.

Do I think Gore would've slashed social services? Probably, though not as much as Bush has.

Would he have given tax cuts to the rich? Probably not. But he would've pushed to subsidize huge corporations, and he would've increased the military budget -- in effect, both transfers of wealth to the very rich.

And after 9/11, he would have made war. And he quite possibly would have made war on Iraq.

[ShaneGR]

134. That is ridiculous

Gore would have NEVER invaded Iraq. He's a liberal institutionalist, the idea that he would have destroyed all of the sympathy we had on an unwinnable war in Iraq is COMPLETELY illogical.

Heck, he was speaking out AGAINST the invasion, publicly.

I'm sick of this Ralph Nader destructive logic. If you want to vote for Bush, go ahead and do it, but don't waste all of our time with this unrational bullcrap.

[durutti]

157. He's speaking out against it now...

But would he have done so if he was President?

The corporate media would've been pressuring him to invade. Many of his staff would be pressuring him to invade -- in fact, a former Clinton adviser, Kenneth Pollack, wrote the bible of the pro-war side, The Threatening Storm.

And, of course, his friends at Occidental would've liked him to invade.

Al Gore is a member of the DLC, which has supported the war from the beginning.

It's one thing to speak against the war when you no longer hold a public office. It's quite different to actually be in the position of the presidency, and subject to all the pressures it entails.

What's really "unrational" is too assume that Democrats will do what's best, in the face of mounds of evidence to the contrary.

[ShaneGR]

206. God you're so blind

I'll be glad when people like you are off to post on your socialist websites, or more likely, your GW2004 website.

[BeachBuckeye]

154. You must know Al really well

You seem to know everything he would have done.

[durutti]

164. You must know him even better.

I'm guessing at what he would do based on his past record and his affiliations. Of course I don't know what he would have done. But neither do you.

I'd have to "know Al really well" to guess at what he would've done, but the same standard doesn't apply to anyone else -- as long as they only speak glowingly of him.

[BeachBuckeye]

173. Really now?

" but the same standard doesn't apply to anyone else"?

Most of the rest are showing some common sense instead of spewing the ridiculous crap coming from your keyboard. You don't really seem to know where the hell you are politically. Just go ahead and throw your vote away time after time and those of us who really want change will use our votes in an intelligent way to get candidates who will at least bring some of our views to the forefront. Flame me if you want but ANY vote in this next election that isn't cast for a ligitimate candidate against Bush is a vote against reason, is a vote against common sense, is a vote against the good of our country.

[Zhade]

136. With all due respect, that argument makes no sense.

He can't compare a Gore presidency to a Bush pResidency - because Bush stole that chance from Gore.

You can't use a hypothetical comparison to make an effective argument.

[dusty64]

91. I agree with much of what

you say sadly. Voting the lesser of evils has always been my choice and ANYONE else will be better than our current regime. I will be voting for whomever wins the Democratic nomination because this abomination MUST be removed from office ASAP and no other party has a chance of achieving this. Next priority will be removing the cockroaches from Congress and we know who they are. I hope you will at least reconsider in 2004, after that they will have to EARN our votes.

[rhino91063]

95. The blood will be on your hands

The democrats may not be perfect, but they are a far sight better then the butcher in the White House. A vote for obscure third party candidates is a vote for bush.

[durutti]

122. Will It?

So if a Democrat wins and starts a war (as I think will happen), I can say I told you so?

[w4rma]

192. Are you a fortuneteller? What if what would not have happened?

Or what if Bush wins because of sentement you help propigate and he blows up the world?

[Terwilliger]

98. That was very good

[QC]

100. You're beautiful!!!!!!!!!!

I wish I could be even half so pure and noble!

[pasadenaboy]

103. is their a socialist underground?

[durutti]

124. No

Only Usenet groups, and those are full of trolls.

[Catherine Vincent]

104. What state are you located in?

If you're in Texas, Oklahoma or one of the other states that go republican no matter what, then by all means vote the socialist party. All this debate crap is a waste of time.

Imo, I think you want to get flamed.

[durutti]

125. Pennsylvania n/t

[Mattforclark]

143. Is a swing state...

Are you planning on trading your vote with someone from a 'safe' state? If you really want vote socialist, please do that or at least seriously consider it.

[ShaneGR]

153. Well, he says he's voting for the Socialist Candidate

I'm not even sure he'll garner enough signatures to even be on the ballot.

[Bread and Circus]

113. This was Nader's argument in 2004, and is patently false....

If you want to vote socialist that's fine if it's what you
believe in.

Just don't act like the Dems and the GOP are two heads of the
same beast. They are not.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Bush's Presidency has clearly proven
the fact.

[durutti]

126. How?

"Sorry, but you are wrong. Bush's Presidency has clearly proven
the fact."

If anything, the Bush presidency has proven that they are two heads of the same beast. The Democrats have bent over backwards to appease Bush.

Also, my argument is distinct from Nader's. Nader actually believes that the system can be reformed. I don't. He wants people to vote Green so that Greens can actually come to power and try to change things. I want people to vote for Socialists just to popularize radical ideas. I'm indifferent to their prospects of winning.

[Bread and Circus]

152. On the finer points maybe you are different from Nader....

I guess I just look at things differently.
It's more than just about economic issues, though
I think economic issues are fundamental and the most important.
Even more than that, it is really all about energy flow.

But on a human axis, I think their are good Dems working
"within the system"
that have compromised in order to move things forward at
all. It is the very nature of politics.

Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Being a socialist is not bad, it's just that in a Democracy,
rule is by consent of the governed. If the governed don't
want socialism, you either have to convince or force them.

It's up to you but I still think that it is far too simplistic
to say they are all just "corporate" robots doing the bidding
of "the man".

[rucky]

115. Why did you even post this?

what kind of reaction were you expecting?
support?
you want us to talk you out of it?
do you like the attention?

i really want to know why any of us should give a shit about your anonymous, singular, and completely wasted vote.

[QC]

121. For some people, politics is moral theater.

It is all about making meaningless but beautiful gestures of moral and political purity. Little things like economic devastation, an endless war, and the like are nothing compared to the ultimate importance of keeping one's hands spotless.

The purity-obsessed on the Left get the same satisfaction from this sort of thing that their counterparts on the Right get from denouncing abortion and prostrating themselves before Roy Moore's idol. With both, it's all about calling everyone's attention to how virtuously removed they are from this fallen, sinful world.

[durutti]

129. You're Missing the Point

Economic devastation and endless war will continue under the Democrats.

Watch.

[rucky]

137. I see, you're hedging your bets

well I hope a big "I told you so" is worth it.

Ya know, you can vote however you want, but to come here - after we're working our asses off - and tell us there is no difference between our party and the GOP... we all know about globalisation. I'm working with my union to fight it. You're punching a card. Any monkey can vote. I'd like to know if you plan on doing something effective, if you feel so strongly about it.

I ask again, what do you expect to achieve from this exercise?

[durutti]

169. For the last time...

I didn't say there's no difference. Read my initial post again.

You're making my point for me. Things like working within a union to fight "globalization" are far more effective than voting for anyone.

[QC]

142. In the real world, where the rest of us live,

differences of degree do matter. For those of us who do not have the luxury of insisting on perfection or nothing, there really is a difference between excellent and ok, bad and worse, etc.

It is you who miss the point.

[Catherine Vincent]

132. I think this poster wants attention.

[Terwilliger]

140. that's the response I expect

you folks are hard partisans...just like the other side

[rucky]

159. Let's talk about 3rd Parties in 2005

it's a little late in the game to go with that strategy for next year, dontcha think.

[Catherine Vincent]

177. Yes I am partisan and damn proud of it!

[durutti]

141. Yes, I want attention.

Anyone interested in critical discussion of ideas must just want attention!

Because, y'know, the attention of anonymous people who I'll never meet is crucially important.

[RichM]

117. I agree with you 110%. Don't let the fools on this board pressure

you to change your mind, either. Note that not a one of them even tried to directly address the points you raised. They merely screamed their displeasure, some of them stupidly pointing out that the name of this board is "Democratic Underground," implying that this incidental bit of trivia made them more right than you!

Democrats are thoroughly contemptible cowards. They have no real analysis of our society's crisis; they cringe before rightwingers & endlessly try to appease them. They make no attempt to ground their view in the lessons history teaches. I feel particular scorn for those who told you that this time around, you should "compromise" for party unity to get Bush out of office -- without a moment's thought given to what it is that THEY should compromise on. Would these same people even go far enough to support the nomination of the one true progressive in the Democratic field - Kucinich? No. They insist that they candidate either be a general who is really a moderate Republican & who undoubtedly still thinks the Vietnam War & scores of US atrocities in Central America were all justifiable; or the former Vermont governor who wasn't even a progressive in his own state.

Democrats are not really the "lesser evil." They are merely the less obvious evil. Their role is simply to confuse & disorient working people, to offer them false hopes before selling them out.

[NNN0LHI]

130. What is this "fools" shit? You talking about me? n/t

[BeachBuckeye]

183. This is the only post in this thread that is MORE full of shit than

the original topic.

You said: "Democrats are thoroughly contemptible cowards. They have no real analysis of our society's crisis; they cringe before rightwingers & endlessly try to appease them. They make no attempt to ground their view in the lessons history teaches. I feel particular scorn for those who told you that this time around, you should "compromise" for party unity to get Bush out of office"

Your brush is waaaaay to broad for my taste. "Democrats are thoroughly comtemptible cowards"? Listen to my show sometime and then tell me we are contemptible cowards. Tell me we "cringe before rightwingers"! Total horseshit!!! That comment is an insult to most everyone on this board and an insult to many great Democrats who have done their best to hold back the advances of lunatics like GWB and his gang. You can push for any candidate you want but when you start throwing out a load of crap like this post you start to look like a reverse freeper and thats kind of scary.

[vdeputy]

118. Oh, please

Things may not have been perfect under Clinton but you can't seriously believe that everything hasn't gotten tremendously worse under Bush. Clinton had environmental polices that actually protected wilderness areas. He put the government in surplus and began paying down the national debt so that we didn't leave such a burden on our children and grand-children. We would not have gone to war with Iraq under Clinton or any other Democrat. I could go on but the bottom line is that if the Democrats deserve a C, that is still much, much better than the F Bush deserves!

[durutti]

135. Worse, yes...

But we're really comparing apples and oranges. Conditions have existed under the Bush administration -- due to no fault of his own -- that did not exist under the Clinton administration.

For one, we had a recession. We also had 9/11. Given those two things, would Clinton have behaved differently?

He may or may not have cut taxes for the rich. I think he almost certainly would have gone to war with Iraq. He's supported Bush in that regard.

And Clinton was no great President for the environment. Environmental crimes went less prosecuted under Clinton than under Reagan.

[BeachBuckeye]

184. Damn, he knows Clinton just as well as he knows Al Gore!

This guy is a walking, talking crystal ball! I think its clear by now that we are wasting our time on someone who is against everything this board stands for. When he starts talking about a recession and 9/11 being "no fault of his own" he starts to show his REAL colors and they ain't pretty.

[durutti]

193. Why do you belive otherwise?

Buckeye, you've done nothing but my ridicule my positions. You've not actually criticized them, point by point. You've presented not evidence to the contrary.

The recession was certainly not Bush's fault, though the difficulty of the recovery arguably was.

9/11 may or may not have been Bush's fault. We won't know until decades from now, when everything's been declassified -- if then.

[Zhade]

146. Hey, I liked a lot of things Clinton did, but...

We would not have gone to war with Iraq under Clinton or any other Democrat.

...what do you call the nearly daily bombing of Iraq from the 'end' of Gulf War I to the start of Operation Occupation? Wasn't that war? If not, it was even worse: unprovoked aggression.

I loved a lot of things under Clinton. But he was NOT a saint. Kosovo, NAFTA, the 1996 antiterrorism executive orders that helped set the stage for the PATRIOT Act, deregulation of media and telecommunications, Waco, 800,000 dead Rwandans due to lack of interest in stopping that massacre...

We need to stop idolizing Clinton. He was not as wonderful as we remember. He did do some awesome things, which I remember fondly, but come on, already. He's one of the DLC powerpushers.

Truth be told, I suspect the reason the VRWC went after Clinton so hard is because he was intended to be more conservative - and corporate-friendly - than he turned out to be, and they punished him for it.

JMHO, of course.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[durutti]

139. I Welcome Critical Examination

O.K., Bill O'Reilly.

I merely asked people not to flame me. Attack my ideas. I encourage it. Just don't attack me as a person.

Say I'm obsessed with ideological purity if you want. Of course, there's a counterpoint to that: you're willing to put your head in the sand and pretend that all will be well if you vote for a Democrat.

Which one of us is right? Time will tell...

[kodi]

158. you do like hell, and a person IS his ideas.

all that time will tell you is what a fool you are.


Your remarks exhibit the standard black or white, good or evil philosophical dichotomy so prevalent of ideologues and at times on the Right and Left. Understand that this is a world that is composed of both good and evil and they are inextricably tied together. No coin has one side.

I have yet to met a person who believed that war was preferable to peace, that deceit preferable to truth, yet experience, and an open, rational mind would reveal about the world the real work of living includes making hard moral choices on just such matters. It is hard to admit that regardless of what one does, evil may be a consequence. That is the very moral dilemma of the world that we all face, but:

The words of Rabbi Hillel spoken 2 millennia ago still ring true, "When the choice is between two evils, tend toward the one that is closer to the good." Otherwise, a greater evil triumphs.

Life doesn't afford us the opportunity to remain aloof from the basic moral questions, which confront us.

Few acts a person does do not result in ill fortune to others. That is the nature of life. Even to eat, something else must die. It is the measure of a person to act as to ensure the most good knowing full well the consequences may result in some portion of evil, even to themselves. It is the cross each of us bears in this life on Earth.

To abandon the world in an egotistical quest for personal or political purity is a far worse evil than to engage in it and in the process get sullied. Life is a game where all of us will someday get our uniforms dirty.

To engage the world does damage to each of us, it cannot be otherwise. But the sacrifice that is made to one's ego, of their idealized perception of themselves when they compromise for the greter good needs to be placed in a higher, more refined context of what really matters to a person. A person can feel bad about himself or herself for having accomplished but a little, but the alternative, to stay above the fray, results in much worse happening to the very things and people in which they believe and far greater evil.

you (your remarks) are like so many leftists, and exhibit what the cartoon character Linus summed up so well, "I love mankind, its just people I can't stand."

and you cant be more of a dumber shit than if you tried, repeatedly, ad naseum on DU i have preached active involvement of citizens in the life of their communitiy, where they can be in a position to someday make a difference in the political process.

those who show up make the decisions. those who dont, bitch about what was decided; just as you have.

all you can think of is the quick fix of voting without realizing that its the day to day participation of people in the political and cultural aspects of society that make the difference.

but that level of active participation is beneath you.

[durutti]

167. Almost funny.

all that time will tell you is what a fool you are.

Have I called you a fool, an idiot, or an asshole? No. Therein lies the difference between debating or discussing and flaming.

Your remarks exhibit the standard black or white, good or evil philosophical dichotomy so prevalent of ideologues and at times on the Right and Left. Understand that this is a world that is composed of both good and evil and they are inextricably tied together. No coin has one side.

I'm not interested in good and evil. I'm interested in what's effective.

and you cant be more of a dumber shit than if you tried, repeatedly, ad naseum on DU i have preached active involvement of citizens in the life of their communitiy, where they can be in a position to someday make a difference in the political process.

those who show up make the decisions. those who dont, bitch about what was decided; just as you have.

all you can think of is the quick fix of voting without realizing that its the day to day participation of people in the political and cultural aspects of society that make the difference.

but that level of active participation is beneath you.

I'm very active in the political life of my community. I've helped organize and participated in countless demonstrations, teach-ins, public forums, boycotts, and petition drives. No, I'm not interested in day-to-day participation.

[kodi]

231. "I'm interested in what's effective." & the Socialist Party is effective?

bah hah hah!!

and this is what you submit as bona fides?

"I'm very active in the political life of my community. I've helped organize and participated in countless demonstrations, teach-ins, public forums, boycotts, and petition drives. No, I'm not interested in day-to-day participation."



in your foggy haze of moral superiority have you ever noticed that the avenues you have used to promote the views you espouse has been ineffective?

have you any understanding of why this is so?

it is not simply the big bad media is shutting out your viewpoints. it's because all those things you cite have little to do with the eventual and effective application of influence on the political process.


oh, yeah, demonstrations work, you betcha'. not even in viet nam, because it was when the moneied interests figured out that nam was a losing game that the US decided to get out.

oh yeah, teach ins, the working man and woman need to be "taught" how the economic structure is fucking them up the ass. like they dont realize it already when they look at their paycheck and they really need some snot nosed acedamic to show them the figures on an over head projection.

oh yeah, public forums.. like school board meetings and county commissionor meetings? oh, you know, the ones where the decisions are made which directly impact your quality of life... those ones? or are you referring to the circle jerk meetings on a campus or coffeehouse where it is "hereby moved that poverty sux."

or are you referring to a save the whales meeting?

oh yeah, boycotts? i wont cross a picket line either, but is that active participation in the political process? hardly so.

oh yeah, petition drives.. me too, for humane society funding, for paved roads, but what the hell is a signature on a piece of paper compared to holding a seat on the board that makes the decision? virtually nothing, that's what.

that requires the day to day participation you eschew.

and you eschew it because of your abiding faith in your own moral superiority.

and this is why your ideology will not succeed.

[Yavin4]

175. If You Believe That Gore Would've Pre-Emptively Attack Iraq

...if you believe that Gore would pass massive tax cuts for the rich only...if you believe that Gore would have fought for the Patriot Act...then you are being fundamentally dishonest, but what I cannot overcome is your selfishness.

Like millions of other Americans, you care only about your precious political ideology and not about the lives of your fellow Americans. There are Democrats in this race that opposed the Iraq war, oppose the pre-emption doctrine, and oppose unilateral foreign policy. Why not work to see that one of these Dems get elected instead of clinging to your purity doctrine.

I vote based on what will happen to my fellow Americans. When Clinton was president, we didn't lose 3,000 people in a terrorist attack. We didn't lose 423 soldiers, and counting, fighting an unnecessary war. We didn't have record deficits. We didn't have massive outsourcing of an entire industry. We didn't lose 3 million jobs. And for that reason, I vote and support the Democrats.

I'm sorry. I don't live a coddled existence where my parents take care of my basic needs, so that I can focus my time and energy on matters that are important to me and no one else. You are emblematic of your generation. If it doesn't suit me and my beliefs to the letter, then I won't play.

The Democrats are far from perfect, but history has shown that they can be changed and they can be moved when enough people make themselves heard in the party. There are more than enough Dem candidates in this election that are close enough to your ideology for you to follow. That is, if you can bear to think of others for once in your life.

[number6]

147. I will .... but

yes I know this twidle-dum twidle-dee argument
there all the same, the Democrats could have a
lot more spine, but the Republicans I do not
think their conservatives any more, I think their
the corporate fasist party.... I'll take my
chances with the Dem's .....

[ShaneGR]

156. Well, the good news is that we won't have to read this garbage soon

After the primaries:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#...

Perhaps the most critical question currently facing progressives is who should receive the Democratic nomination for president in 2004. In order to encourage a robust and thoughtful debate on this topic, we are instituting a few simple guidelines.

Negative attacks are an unavoidable part of any political campaign, and therefore they are permitted against any Democratic presidential candidate. However, once the Democratic party officially nominates its candidate for president, then the time for fighting is over and the negative attacks against candidates must stop. The administrators of this website do not wish for our message board to be used as a platform to attack and tear down the only progressive on the planet with any hope of defeating George W. Bush. Constructive criticism and even outright disappointment with the candidate may be expressed, but partisan negative attacks will not be welcome. If you wish to contribute to the defeat of the Democratic candidate for president, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website. As the election season draws closer, we may expand this rule to include Democratic candidates for other political offices.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political organizing activity by supporters of any political party other than the Democratic party. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate.

[Bonobo]

171. I despise that some of you out there want to silence this person!

Let him/her speak his/her mind. It will not hurt anyone here to read ideas that liberals were once proud to discuss openly before the communist scare of the 50's.

If you continue to try to silence dissent, you will be no better than the other side. Please reread Animal Farm -the pigs are turning into humans...

[ShaneGR]

197. Bush-Cheney 2004

Who the hell cares about the Communist scare before 1950?????????

You know what I care about? Ridding this country of the greatest burden it has faced in the last 30 years.... George W Bush and the Neo-Conservatives running his administration.

PERIOD.

[durutti]

172. Is this an organizing activity?

I'm not encouraging anyone to vote for Walt Brown in the 2004 election. If anything, I'm encouraging abstentionism. I'm voting for Brown as a protest vote. I don't expect anyone else to follow suit.

[bluestateguy]

161. You will have no standing to criticize * if your vote swings the election

Enjoy your little bourgeoise ideological crusade from the comfort of your abode. The rest of us have too much at stake for that kind of crap. There is a reason why Ralph Nader had little or no appeal among non-white, non-well-to-do voters: they understood the stakes.

[BeachBuckeye]

163. This is an absurd comment

You said: "they're exposing people to views that normally aren't seriously considered. And when people vote for them, it forces some recognition of those views."

You seem to have forgotten who the majority is in this country. If I recall the 2000 election properly, the "Leftist" candidate got more votes than Bush. How do you figure his views were "views that normally aren't seriously considered"? Seems to me a helluva lot of people (the majority) seriously considered his views as being normal. Al Gore didn't indoctrinate the masses with views not considered normal, he merely connected with those folks that shared his views. Jesus, do you really think all voters are a bunch of zombies waiting to be programmed?

Your proclamations here just don't make a bit of sense.

[durutti]

174. Gore is a leftist?

Since when?

[SahaleArm]

178. What's a leftist?

A Liberal Democrat? Gore
A Progressive Democrat? Kucinich
A Marxist?

[BiggJawn]

179. Then let me invite you to the Lounge....

Where we have a spot for your "I'm leaving DU" post all warmed up for you.

I'm serious. you wanna spout that Naderian "We only have 2 branches of the Corporate Party" meme, go do it someplace else.

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

[dolo amber]

180. *IF*

there is an election, I will certainly vote for whomever stands the greatest chance of ousting Codpiece be they Democrat, Socialist or Whig for that matter; having said that, I agree with the a lot of what you say. This has been painfully obvious to me for many years, for as long as I can remember, really. It's just a puppet show; the only thing we can hope for is to have the least evil puppetmasters pulling the strings.

The way our system is currently set up, the interests of big business will ALWAYS outweigh the interests of the common man, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.

[Yavin4]

181. I Hate It When People Attend A Noam Chomsky Lecture

and think that they know everything.

Look, Noam Chomsky is an intellectual. He lives in the pristine world of Academia. He's a tenured professor that never has to worry about fighting a war, layoffs, healthcare, and retirement. All of his basic human needs are well taken care of. This allows him the intellectual time and freedom to pontificate about the world.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, we're in a day-to-day struggle with the most powerful, right-wing, facist leader since Adolph Hitler, who's in the process of colonizing the Middle East, giving corporations tyrannic rule at home, and destroying the social safety net for millions of underprivileged Americans.

I'm sorry that most Americans don't live in the pristine world of Academia.

[durutti]

189. LOL

I've never been much into Noam Chomsky. His style of writing is very drab; he just recites facts. His lectures are much worse.

Chomsky, by the way, has taken the "anyone but Bush" approach. Not the approach I've taken!

No one needs to read Chomsky to say what I'm saying. Personally, I haven't cracked one of his books since 11th grade. You really only need some knowledge of history.

You see, unlike most of the people who've responded to my initial post, I'm actually capable of forming my own ideas, regardless of what James Carville tells me to think.

[Terwilliger]

194. Chomsky has taken the Anyone But Bush approach?

He doesn't vote in national elections.

Hope your other conclusions are better thought out.

[ShaneGR]

198. Yup, he doesn't vote

Which is why he has no valid opinion in any of it.

[Terwilliger]

200. he knows more about foreign policy than elected Democrats

who make the policy

[durutti]

202. Incorrect

In "Manufacturing Consent", Chomsky says that he sometimes votes in national elections. In fact, he says, he almost voted for Nixon.

He also endorsed and voted for Ralph Nader. And recently, he has noted that he'll support anyone but Bush, saying that Kucinich has the "best program". There was actually a post on this topic on DU a few weeks back.

[Terwilliger]

212. I'd really love a link

He said on C-span that he didn't vote, I never heard about Nader, and said Kucinich was the most significant alternative to Bush

[Tinoire]

225. Here you go Ter

Expanding the Floor of the Cage, Part II

An interview with Noam Chomsky

By David Barsamian

The American people have spoken once again in the 1996 elections. Clinton says it’s a vindication of "the vital center," which he locates somewhere between "overheated liberalism and chilly conservatism." What was your reading of the elections?

Was there any choice other than the vital center? As far as I know Clinton and Dole are moderate Republicans, more or less interchangeable representatives of the business community, old-time government insiders. Maybe there were personality differences. They have somewhat different constituencies. They behave slightly differently. I think the election was not a vote for the vital center, it was just a vote against. Both candidates were unpopular. Very few people expected anything from either of them. Voting was at a historic low. I think it reflected the general sense that the political system isn’t functioning.

In Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass there are a couple of characters called Tweedledum and Tweedledee. They seemed on the surface to be quite different but there was no difference between them. Ralph Nader has been talking about the Republicans and the Democrats as Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

There’s never much of a difference between the parties. After all, they are two business parties. But over the years it’s probably been narrowing. In my view the last liberal president was Richard Nixon. After that it’s been straight, what they call here, conservatives, starting with Carter, running through to the present. I think it’s a reflection of things happening in the economy, in social life, it’s a reflection of more general things. The kind of gesture to liberalism that was required from the New Deal through, say, Nixon, became less necessary with new weapons of class war developing in the early 1970s and proceeding on to what the business press, in one of my favorite phrases, calls "capital’s subjugation of labor" for 15 years. Actually, I’d say 20 years. Under those circumstances you can drop the window dressing. That’s the standard story about welfare capitalism. Welfare capitalism is introduced in order to undercut democracy. One standard historical pattern is when the society begins to get a bit democratized, when people try to take over some aspect of their affairs and run it, if it can’t be stopped, the next normal reaction is to say, Okay, don’t worry about it, I’ll do it for you. Us rich guys. A classic example was in Flint, Michigan, early in this century. Flint was the center of General Motors, at the heart of the automobile revolution. Around 1910 there was a good deal of popular, socialist, and labor organizing. There were plans to really take things over, run things themselves, support unions, have public services done democratically. Flint was a GM town at that time. The wealthy business community was very upset by that, naturally. It meant that it was no longer going to be a company town. They finally decided to come along with the progressive line, say everything you’re doing is right. We’ll run a candidate who will support and do all those things. We can do it a lot better because we have all these resources. So we’ll take it over. You want a park? Fine. Vote for the business candidate. He’ll put in a park. Look at the resources we have and the business acumen. And that won. The array of resources was such that it undermined and eliminated the incipient democratic and popular structures and indeed there was welfare capitalism until such time as they didn’t need it any more. When they didn’t need that weapon, then it was dropped.

<snip>

http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/articles/apr97bar...

----

A few questions on a more personal level. Do you vote?

Sometimes. I tend to vote more at lower levels: school councils and so on. The reason is that there, you find some real choices. Quite often, it's going to make a difference to the schools whether X or Y gets in. As one goes up the ladder I tend, by and large, to vote less. At the presidential level, things rarely matter much. Sometimes I do vote in presidential elections - albeit holding my nose. For example, I think voting for Reagan made things somewhat worse than voting for, say, Carter or Mondale. Voting for Bush makes things slightly worse than voting for Dukakis.

These decisions are often extremely difficult to make. To tell you the truth, the first time I ever voted in a presidential election was 1964, and then I voted against Goldwater, because I thought a vote for Goldwater would mean a vote for escalating the war in Vietnam. I learned later that while the election was going on, Lyndon Johnson was sending emissaries to his friends like Lester Pearson, explaining to them how he was going to escalate the war in Vietnam in precisely the way he was denouncing Goldwater for talking about doing. Pearson approved, incidentally. He told Johnson he shouldn't use nuclear weapons; conventional bombing would suffice. That's the sort of thing you get the Nobel Peace Prize for.

In 1968, I just couldn't figure it out. I mean, the marginal difference between Nixon and Humphrey - I couldn't make a decision. The major issue, on which virtually everything else turned, was terminating the war in Indochina. My own guess was that Nixon would probably do it a bit faster than Humphrey, which in retrospect is probably correct. But I couldn't make a choice, so I didn't vote. And so it goes.

http://adamjones.freeservers.com/chomsky.htm
==============

Sadly, he echoes many of the PH.D.s I work with. Too many of them don't vote. Aren't even going to vote in this election. A couple are looking at Kucinich just to 'amuse' me but to them, despite everything going on, it's the same. The closer I look at politics, the more political news I read, the more I see they are right, that Chomsky is right. It's just the 2-party dance with one party throwing people bigger crumbs and only when they have to.

When the people get so hungry they start to get agitated, in come the Democrats with their crumbs... When the people at the table get tired of sharing even their crumbs, in come the Republicans... and the delicate balance of giving the people just enough to keep them docile is maintained.

[durutti]

186. Conclusion

I've been at home following this thread almost all night. Reading these responses has been interesting.

I appreciate all of them, positive and negative. The free exchange of ideas is crucial to a democratic society.

There have been a few recurring themes in the negative responses to my post that I'd like to address.

First of all, I think it's worth noting that not one person has responded by attempting to refute anything I actually said. No one has contested my analysis of the historical development of the Democratic Party. Not one person has posted a rebuttal of the various points I made. Not one.

Instead, in truly FOX News fashion, many posters attacked me as a "fool", an "idiot", and the like. This is what I meant by flaming -- though I suppose I expected it, so I don't really mind it. I just hope it's apparent to these folks that they're practicing the same debating tactics that they claim to so detest when they're employed by the right.

Others have said (very reasonably) that a third party needs to start small to be successful. They're right. But this follows from a misreading of my initial post. I'm not interested in electing a third party with the idea that it will actually make a difference. It won't. Just like at any of the European social-democratic party. I'm interested in campaigning for third parties because they will introduce ideas into the public arena that usually aren't seriously considered -- for example, universal childcare; single-payer health insurance; and actually giving workers some substantive control over their workplaces.

A few have accused me of "wanting attention". This is among the most ridiculous assertions I've ever encountered, so much so that I won't address it further.

Then comes my favorite: "This is Democratic Underground, not Socialist Underground!" The posters who responded in this manner apparently would like to see DU become a mirror-image of Free Republic, in which all independent thought in silenced.

I've been posting to DU for about half a year now. I thoroughly enjoy the forum, and I'd like to think that I've contributed something valuable to the many interesting discussions had here. I took a chance and made a post about ideas of mine that I know aren't popular. If this offends some people, then I'm sorry.

I'd like to reiterate that I'm not campaigning for Walt Brown. I'm only expressing my disgust with the state Democratic Party, as a registered Democrat myself. I only mentioned that I'm endorsing Brown at the tail-end of my post. But advocating on behalf of Brown was not the intention of my post. I might as well have said I'm endorsing Mickey Mouse; the point of my post was to say that the Democratic Party has lost its way, and that I don't believe that this problem can be rectified through normal electoral channels.

All that said, I'll continue to participate in Democratic Underground, as I agree with the vast majority of posters on the vast majority of issues, and can and will offer my support in these areas. But I'll stay away from the issue of electoral politics, for obvious reasons.

[janx]

191. "crucial to a democratic society" ?

Horse manure.

You want to throw a democratic society out of the window by pontificating about your ideological crap.

I'm not worried.

One vote, at this point, is not going to make much of a difference.

Go throw rocks at banks or something.

The rest of us have some serious and practical work to do.

[Terwilliger]

195. go throw rocks at banks or something?

pretty lame, but if one vote is not going to make much difference, then I'll vote elsewhere too

Why vote for the party-line and holier-than-thou attitude? I'll vote for who the hell ever I want, since it doesn't make a difference.

[durutti]

196. Geez...

Horse manure.

You want to throw a democratic society out of the window by pontificating about your ideological crap.

Wow! You must know me better than I supposedly know Al Gore!

One vote, at this point, is not going to make much of a difference.

So what bothers you so much about it?

Go throw rocks at banks or something.

Now you're not even coherent. Why would I want to throw rocks at banks?

The rest of us have some serious and practical work to do.

Like bickering over whether to vote for Clark or Dean.

Seriously, though, I was trying to make my peace with you people with that last post. Grow up.

[Terwilliger]

201. the rocks at banks thing was a lame attempt...

to associate Socialists with the Anarchists in the WTO protest circles

[FDRrocks]

203. I agree with your general point.

And will most likely not vote Democratic in 2k4 or for the duration of my stay in this country.

And I did notice that in your thread... no one did address the points you made. Or explain why a centrist party expects the vote of the left. Or how someone who votes green would vote democrat. I'll support the liberal, whatever the party is. I don't support the socialist candidate... I will vote Kucinich in the primary... and that is most likely all I'll give the Dems... then move my ass over to the liberal Greens.

[ShaneGR]

205. Answer this my fine weather friend, for your 60'th reply in your thread

You talk about how people didn't refute your logic. What you're missing is that a lot of the rebuttals you received were based on their like/dislike of Bush and the Neocons. You are completely overlooking, and insulting, the people who actually agree with you on 90% of the issues. A vast majority of us are so disgusted with the Bush Administration, we do not want to hear ANYTHING that is going to contribute to his re-election. We REJECT the idea that a Democratic Administration would be ANYTHING like the one currently in the White House. You only have to actually listen to what the current Democratic Candidates, with the exception of Lieberman, to conclude that they are a much better person than Bush. We reject your logic, and we are simply to bored with the Nader 2000 language that there is no difference between the Democrats (ME) and the Republicans (THEM). It's really an old and very tired argument. You're just reposting the same type of logic that we heard from the Green people in 2000.

And regardless of what you want to say about Nader not costing the election, and the Supreme Court nonsense.....

Two points:

1. Gore 'lost' Florida by 500 votes. Nader had 17,000 votes in Florida. Without Nader, there was no recount controversy. Nader also had more votes than the total Gore lost by in 2 other states.

2. Nader piled on Gore, and further weakened him. Look up what Nader said about Gore and what he hoped to do to the Dems in 2000, it says a lot about what you're saying now. You won't find him attacking the Republican Party.

[GreenArrow]

207. hey, Lieberman's

a better person than Bush.

[durutti]

208. Rebuttal

1. Gore 'lost' Florida by 500 votes. Nader had 17,000 votes in Florida. Without Nader, there was no recount controversy. Nader also had more votes than the total Gore lost by in 2 other states.

This argument ignores the fact that many people who voted for Nader would not have otherwise voted, and some of them would actually have voted for Bush.

[saoirse]

213. Nader is...

a total douchebag.

[Bonobo]

220. Impressive vocab you got there.

Save us the honor of reading your insightul posts, okay?

[saoirse]

210. A vote for anyone other than the Democratic nominee

is a vote for Bush.

Vote for whoever you want to - it's a free country,
after all - but that is the brutal truth.

[WillyBrandt]

211. A vote for anyone other than the Democratic nominee

is a vote for war.

I don't give a shit what their position on the IWR is, even. If you do not vote for the Democratic nominee, you increase the probability of another war; you also increase the probability of any future war being fought with a maximum of stupidity.

You will also accelerate the fiscal wreakage of the United States. Wait until bond investors see that the mammoth deficits have no chance of abating.

But who cares about that? We're here to revel in our purity and our goodness. Ideological selfishness trumps sanity when it comes to some knuckleheads.

[mmonk]

215. Its a free country

Vote for who you want to. I'm voting for whoever has the best chance to beat Bush. I'll take my chances on the Dem nominee. I can't live with myself if I don't do my very best to try and get him (Bush) voted out.

[texas is the reason]

216. <in david spade voice>buuh- bye!

sorry, but there will always be 1-5 percent on each side (the right wingers have thier idealists, too) that are too idealist for thier own good, and we have to accept that as one half of a two party system (and have no illusions- it IS a two party system). there is a time and a place for protest votes, but standing on the brink of the bushCo fourth reich (as we are now) is not one of them. so go on and waste your vote because the dems have all sold out. go barefoot to protest the exploitation of the people making our shoes, and eat your own fingernails because you can't bear the thought of a plant or animal suffering because of your actions. wallow in your guilt and self-loathing. the rest of us living in the real world will do what it takes to save this country.

[Bonobo]

222. Go read more pop psych books...

And spend less time insulting people. This has been a generally good thread but for people like you ho must add personal insults and condescending words (eat your own fingernails because you can't bear the thought of a plant or animal suffering because of your actions)

[texas is the reason]

227. how can you say that this was...

a generally good thread? what thread have you been reading? this post was flame bait from the start (as i am sure the poster had intended- with 60+ replies and all...)bu let's keep arguing - maybe we can help the poster set a new DU thread replies record!

[Zomby Woof]

224. wow

If life is going to be better in Dean's Nu-Perfekt Amerika, your post did not convince me.

[burr]

219. let me know when Walt Brown gets on some ballots!

I agree with you completely on this point...

"In summary, electoralism is a dead end. It cannot be successful. Nothing short of social revolution can alter our current course.

Is there any point in voting or running for office at all, then? Yes. Campaigning for office and voting for candidates should not be considered a means to affect change; but rather a means to popularize marginalized views. When leftist candidates run for office, when they give newspaper interviews, when they appear at debates -- they're exposing people to views that normally aren't seriously considered. And when people vote for them, it forces some recognition of those views."


Remember that in ancient Greek democratic meant (of the people), and republican meant (things public). Until we begin to see leaders in both parties fighting to democratize the primaries and to abolish the Selectoral College..voting only does what you suggested, popularize and marginalize views. But the real question then becomes...how is this most effectively done?

For some time now I have been considering some Republican primary candidates for this very purpose. These candidates include Bill Wyatt, and Blake Ashby...who would have a better shot. In 1992 Pat Buchanan won 37% of the vote in New Hampshire, receiving positive publicity despite the fact that he did not gain any significant support of the convention delegates. If one of these candidates could do the same in 2004, it would provide a greater boost for our cause than marginalizing any of our own primary candidates. Also..if someone were to take such an approach, they would best popularize those views by eventually supporting the Democratic nominee. But the point is that no recent incumbent President has been defeated without first facing significant primary opposition.
<http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/Jo... >

Finally, the best way of popularizing one's views can vary greatly from state to state. If the Green or Socialist Party candidates are not on the ballot in some states, what options are left for voters in those states to effectively popularize such views?

[Tinoire]

223. No flames here- just sadness and not at you

We must face the appalling fact that we have been betrayed by both the Democratic and Republican Parties. –Martin Luther King, Jr., Facing the Challenge of a New Age, 1957

Excellent post

I'm not yet willing to go as far as you and totally ditch the Democratic Party but between the threads excusing the Confederate Flag and this week's zealous posts excusing the state of Vermont's land theft of the Abenaki Indian Lands, I'm damn close because I am not so sure that I want to be part of a party where there's so much denial going on.

You can't fix anything if you're in denial. I mean, damn if you can't even see the problem, own up to it, how on earth are you going to fix it?

Anyway excellent post. We have much in common except that I'm endorsing Kucinich whom most of the people berating you confuse with a Socialist.

Kucinich may just be my last branch to the Democratic Party before we part ways.

Let me just add that there's nothing I resent more than the screams of ABB. The coiners of ABB are so concerned about the lukewarm reception it's getting among the voting public that they're now polling to find a replacement slogan as if some dumb slogan is the fix and that semi-awake people don't notice that those screaming ABB the loudest are the same ones trying to force New Centrist candidates down our throats.

Three years ago I would have voted for Clinton again. Last year I would have voted for Gore again. This election I do not think I can vote for anyone who has been within 10 feet of the DLC or the NDN which is nothing more than a Lieberman-founded DLC so that they can pump twice as much money into the establishment's choice.

ABB = throw your vote away on one of the media choices we will give you.

[Aidoneus]

226. excellent post, durutti

The shallow, petty, and desperate attacks that make up much of this thread are unfortunate, but are, more unfortunately, the sort of response one can typically expect from these who prefer to stick their heads in the sand and lash out blindly.

[KelleyKramer]

229. Ffffsssstt!

If you are going to give up, why not just move away. I hear New Zealand is good.

Personally, I prefer to stay and fight.

[Cleita]

232. If you buy that argument that there is no difference

then you haven't noticed the facist take over of the Republican Party, whom you will help keep in power by voting for a third party candidate. A vote is a terrible thing to waste.