LETTER
March 1, 2004
On Nader
Some think everybody who opposes Bush will vote for "Anybody But Bush" - as the expression goes. I hope someone tells them not to count on it.John Kerry is better than Bush. No doubt about it. And malaria is better than HIV.
Can we have a third option please?
I have to say, it really bothers me that people seem to be voting not on issues but for some vacuous thing called electability. That's just nuts!
When you go into the voting booth in November, will you really say to yourself "who is most electable - I think I'll vote for that person." No, you'll be voting for the person you think is best. Yet, if you won't be voting on electability in November, why on earth does it make sense to do so now, in the primaries? If you vote for someone, now, because he's best on electability, you're picking him on a criterion that simply won't be relevant in the Fall. Whereas if you vote for him on the war, or health care, or some other issue or issues, those will still presumably be valid criteria in the general election.
If you had 2 equally good candidates to decide between, then I suppose electability might be a good tie-breaker. But is that what we have?
With John Kerry you get someone who voted wrong on the War Resolution; voted wrong on NAFTA and WTO, etc.; voted wrong on "No Child Left Behind"; voted wrong on the Patriot Act; and I don't know how he voted on Bush's tax cuts, but what do you want to bet he voted wrong on those, too? Kucinich voted right on every count, I think; and Dean held the right position, early, on most of them. Even Edwards was better on NAFTA and the WTO and trade with China.
Kerry and Edwards have some pretty good ideas now, true enough. And, to give due credit, Kerry has stood for many good causes in the past. In ordinary times, either would be viewed as a satisfactory candidate. But each helped get us into the problems we find ourselves suffering from now; and neither has shown that he can do more than make promises to get us out.
Dean and Kucinich have at least shown that they were smart enough to foresee the kinds of messes we are in today, and - for that alone - they sound like better choices to take the reins in these difficult times. Neither may seem sufficiently electable now; but in the Fall - in that voting booth - what they stand for might just get them elected. Because, in the final analysis, it's what they stand for that we'll be voting for. Then....
D
Dear D.
Regarding much of your feeling about being duped by a defective two-party system in which both sides seem to be coopted by big corporations, I feel the same way, and yes, the situation is fraught with dilemma. Of course I don't really have a satisfactory answer.
I think for me it's not that I vote for the one I think is the best. My vote is a political act, a small one, but probably about my only chance to apply tangible force to my government.
I consider us -- you and I and millions who share the feelings you expressed above -- to be under siege right now. This is war, not on terrorism, but Bush's war on us. And we have to group together to form the largest, strongest coalition we possibly can to push Bush out.
I am extremely disappointed as you are that we are now looking at a choice between two Yale, Skull & Boneser, millionaires, generational politicians etc. But I think I sense an unspoken agreement across that broad spectrum of people who are now moved to rise against Bush that gives us a principle through which to unite a broad spectrum of people for a more democratic, humane, egalitarian government.
It really looked like it was going to be Dean, and he was much more of an outsider and was willing to speak outside of the insiders' vocabulary. But he left a lot of his new vocabulary with whoever takes the banner against Bush. We may never have to all agree again, but just this one time, just to get Bush out.
To me -- and I think to many others -- it boils down to: Step One -- Get rid of Bush. All join together who understand how serious it is and let's accomplish this thing. From then, we can continue to apply pressure upon the government to move away from this hideous corporate oligarchy.
The public pressure that is beginning to coalesce against that corporate oligarchy via MoveOn and many other Internet acitivist campaigns is making serious waves and the corporate power structure is nervous. But we have to all unite behind someone, and I mean anyone. It can be Nader. It can be Kerry. It can be Mickey Mouse. I mean it. Bush and the neocons have to go. I know Kerry is from only about two feet away from the same tree as Bush, and I don't like it. But Ralph didn't run in the Democratic primary to see who the voters picked as an alternative to Bush; he's running in his own party, and that is not a good political strategy in this struggle. It fragments the potential movement at a very urgent time.
What I do agree with is his descriptions and analysis of what is wrong and what needs to be done. Those are more or less the things we need to address and in essence the agenda we need to shoot for on a long term.
He's not the only one saying a lot of the best things he is saying, because when something becomes a buzz, the politicians start parroting it. The ideas are what is important, not necessarily Ralph, or Dennis Kucinich, or Howard Dean, as much as I love them. This is like pulling down the Berlin Wall. We just have to do this and all get together with whatever strange bedfellows share that desire and let's get this mob out of power.
That's why I am behind the idea of using whatever mechanism is within the Democratic party to try to create a new movement that once again does represent the needs of the people, not just the corporate giants. But to beat the power of corporate America, which now has all the power of the government under its control, we have to take very intelligent moves and concentrate whatever power we can muster toward removing the regime. It's not all about who is most right. It's also about taking effective political action. We must start on the playing field we find ourselves on. A grassroots movement can take over the Democratic Party and become a controlling party again.
The first step is for everyone who believes another Bush term would be disastrous to unite in that one purpose. During the election and after the election, we the people on the grassroots level must continue to flex our muscles and apply pressure on the politicians to effect the agenda that is more or less articulated by Nader, and by others as well.