By Bill Resnick
It’s been a miracle. Everybody’s talking politics, with an unprecedented coming month of non-stop political talk, so far generating more heat than light, on the left too.

To start clarifying the issues requires recognizing that unless we vote for the pure evil of Bush, we run into trade-offs. So our voting choice — whether Kerry, Nader, Cobb of the Greens, Oregon’s Walter Brown of the Socialists — depends on how we evaluate the likelihood and extent of good and bad in each choice, and how any vote would impact the left’s preeminent longterm goal, to build powerful movements.

JOHN KERRY
Kerry’s Pluses
— Kerry is not Bush. With president Kerry we wouldn’t have to watch that ignorant murderous creep, and wouldn’t feel so depressed about our fellow citizens, that they could be taken in by his sanctimony and fake moralism and populism.
— A Bush loss, according to Kerry supporters, would derail the very dangerous conservative agenda (including privatizing social security and much else), as well as, in the worst case scenario, creating a fearful, hypermilitarized police state operating to increase antagonism, resistance, and terrorism around the globe.
— A Bush loss would also, again according to supporters, take progressives off the defensive, and give room to promote alternative policies and build movements.
— Kerry would be far better on reproductive rights and Supreme and Federal Court appointments. He would not be zealous to reverse environmental or worker protections. And he would likely reverse some of Bush’s tax breaks to the rich to subsidize medical care to the uninsured and poor.
— Kerry would disown Bush’s preemptive war doctrine (though all post World War II U.S. Presidents have taken unilateral military action, while proclaiming adherence to international law).

Kerry’s Minuses
— Kerry is a liberal only as defined by the Republican National Committee. With few exceptions the Democrats have abandoned their New Deal pro-worker roots and moved way right, with Kerry no exception. Kerry will pursue pretty much the same foreign and domestic policies of Clinton and Carter before him, supporting U.S. multinationals in their quest for profits, promoting the corporate version of free trade, at great expense to most people on earth and the global environment.
— Kerry is campaigning on increasing troop strength in Iraq, and bringing in traditional allies. All U.S. and European elites are petrified about Islamic or worse Jihadist takeover of Iraq, then to menace Saudi Arabia and strengthen the Iranian mullahs and their nuclear ambitions, that making Israel crazy enough to begin threatening with their nukes. Dependent on mideast oil, the U.S. will likely continue to get in deeper, becoming to the Arab states as Israel is to Palestine. And in that latter struggle, both Bush and Kerry have been unequivocally Zionist. Kerry will not take any big initiatives to anger the U.S. military/industrial complex. And constantly goaded by the right for being soft, he could, like Clinton, initiate considerable lethal military action, particularly targeting Iran.
— In U.S. politics only Republicans can reduce the military and make international compromises, as did Nixon famously in “making peace” with China, by marginalizing Republican “hawks.” And only Democrats can make deeply conservative domestic “reforms,” by defusing liberal opposition to enact the “reform.” Clinton twisted arms and bought votes on two profound issues: to end public assistance and to pass NAFTA. And Kerry might do the same on many issues: partially or fully privatizing social security and medicare, expanding school vouchers, and of course more “free trade” treaties
— Kerry will never critique corporate dominance much less try to build a left alternative, and indeed like Clinton, continuously pressure progressives to be quiet and not embarrass him, thus further weakening the left and preventing development of an alternative.
— Kerry, like Clinton, will set environmental policy to partially satisfy the big environmental groups within the Democratic Party, but doing nothing that would really enrage business. A Kerry administration will not even discuss much less respond to the long run threats to planetary ecosystems.
— These policies will very likely generate more income polarization, working class pain, and environmental destruction, thus leading to a more anxious and angry people, vulnerable to an even more right wing Republican. Our current Bush is worse than Reagan, and who knows what might follow a discredited Kerry Presidency.

RALPH NADER

Nader’s Pluses
— The only way to stop the political trajectory of the last 30 years — that is increasingly conservative and feckless Democrats replaced by increasingly ambitious and bold conservatives — is to create a political force independent of the Democrats that can ultimately challenge for power. That is Nader’s great appeal for many; that he is building that force, building “independent politics.”
— And of course Nader says he would end militarism in the mideast. And he excoriates corporate power, would reconstruct Federal regulation, and would build a health care system with access to all.

Nader’s Minuses
— Nader is not going to win; his campaign only makes sense as part of a strategy of slowly building from the bottom a real progressive movement. Yet, he has rejected the Greens. Further, as an educational campaign Nader’s is not very good — calling for better regulated capitalism and confining citizen participation to consumer and environmental vigilance. He is not a radical democrat. Finally, as Kerry supporters reiterate, if you vote for Nader, at least in the swing states, you might get Bush.

DAVID COBB
AND THE GREENS

Cobb’s Pluses
— He’s a Green, thus educates and advocates radical democracy and environmental sustainability.
— Since Cobb’s branch of the Greens only push voting Green in the safe states, he’s less likely to help Bush.
— Greens claim to see themselves as the expression of movements, and that movement-building has precedence, based on the recognition that real change requires building grassroots power.
Cobb’s Minuses
— The safe state strategy reduces votes for Independent Political Action. While claiming precedence for movement-building, Green parties in Europe, when close to gaining parliamentary representation, “moderated” their critique and program to not offend bourgeois voters. And when in office they neglected and ultimately abandoned the movements. U.S. Greens seem to be headed in this same direction, though a long way from gaining much power.

MY TAKE ON IT
Reasonable folks can differently evaluate the likelihood of these pluses and minuses. Here’s my analysis and point of view:
— Bush is truly dangerous; worst case scenarios are not outlandish, and only strong movements will deter him.
— Kerry is a more sophisticated less adventurous representative of wealthy elites, though in the absence of strong movements, he will operate as the Kerry Minuses above predict.
— Therefore the task today, in this country and globally, is to build the movements to defend average folks and develop plans and power to renovate political and economic systems. Such that 25 years ahead, should disaster appear to be approaching (from a combination of environmental decline, declining food and other production, and economic crisis), these movements would provide a contending political force that could enunciate reconstruction policies and attract the kind of strong majority commitments sufficient to keep this country from embracing the fascist program (America First and kill the rest) for dealing with the crisis.
So during this electoral season, with politics on nearly everybody’s mind, I will:
— Support anti-war actions and other protests against Bush policies.
— Work to build movements.
— Suggest to people in the swing states (Oregon may well be one) that it’s OK to vote for Kerry, but to recognize what they’re getting, so spend their time not campaigning for Kerry but building movements and radical consciousness.
— Suggest to people in the majority of states that are uncontested (that are solidly for either Bush or Kerry) to vote for Nader, Cobb, or Brown, but only for the purpose of building independent politics that could be the electoral arm of popular movements.

Bill Resnick is a Portland Alliance board member.

 

Some other voices on dealing with November 2nd

 

Vote...but don’t hope for too much

Chris Nielsen KBOO Programer Vote for Kerry, but don’t get your hopes up. We have to look far beyond this election. Real-world electoral politics are enduringly split between the Demo-cratic and Repub-lican brand names. Only an irrelevant, amateurish fringe devotes itself to alternative party fantasies. When mainstream Americans want to cast a vote to the left of center, they vote for Democrats. That means the best electoral strategy for leftists is to support electable liberals or progressives under the Democratic label, which will give them legitimacy in most voters’ eyes. The independent “527” organizations, with their energy and anger, are the most hopeful development of this election season. We need to build on that movement as an inside-outside Democrat-oriented strategy, trying to defeat Republicans and conservative Democrats and trying to pressure all elected officials to adopt more progressive agendas.

Vote now will affect our future

Xander Patterson, Exec Dir., Physicians for Social Responsibility Resnick is right that building the movement is now, as always, the most important thing. In electoral politics that means building minor parties, and it starts at the bottom. Our focus should be on running Greens in local winnable races, for its own sake and to earn the credentials to win higher offices in the future. That is why I ran for the East Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District in 2000 and will get re-elected this year (I’m unopposed). In this presidential race the movement is Anybody But Bush, the biggest and most united progressive coalition in decades. Green Party candidate David Cobb’s strategic states strategy builds the party where we can while stating clearly that Greens are part of the ABB movement. Nader’s Independent candidacy, on the other hand, thumbs it nose at the broad ABB movement and it does nothing to create an enduring structure, such as a party. An “independent movement” is an oxymoron. I know that if I did not acknowledge the reality that defeating Bush is the top priority now I could not run as a Green for city council or county commission in the future and have any hope of winning.

Supporting Kerry will mean disaster

Greg Kafoury Attorney and Nader activist Eighteen months ago the New York Times called the anti-war movement “the world’s second super power.” Today the label would be a cruel joke. The movement sold out to Kerry while demanding nothing, and nothing is what we have to show for it. Similarly, the “anybody but Bush” mantra has led environmental groups, unions, civil liberties advocates and a host of progressive leaders to shut down their brains and forget the most fundamental rule of politics; nothing comes without demand. The result has been a disaster for the anti-war movement, progressives of every stripe and most of all for John Kerry. Without pressure on the Left, Kerry has been drawn ever tighter into the vortex of corporate power, and his campaign has become incoherent and in polls reflects the lack of confidence that incoherence creates. In selling out for nothing progressives are assuring that Kerry will be the least man that he can be and they are assuming his defeat. Those who wish to defeat Bush should stand with Nader, and demand that Kerry earn every vote by adopting a platform worthy of their support. Between a true Republican and a faux Republican voters are sure to choose the true Republican.

Its not about furthering our agenda

Joe Uris, writer and talk radio host John Kerry must be supported in his effort to oust Bush and Cheney from the White House. This is the overwhelming reality of this election. Yes, John Kerry and the modern Democratic party are not the same odd FDR coalition that created social security and favorable opportunities for labor to organize in the ’30s. Yes, they are not the same Democrats who gave us strong civil rights legislation (which destroyed the odd coalitions southern white base) and Medicare. Today’s Democratic Party occupies the center of an imaginary left to right political spectrum. It, and the national liberal establishment it represents, needs to find a base that is progressive in the European social democratic sense. Kerry is weaker than Edwards on these issues and can not be seen as a significant agent of change in the direction most progressives would like to see the country go. Having said that, any reasonable analysis short of an apocalyptic approach which argues that things must get much worse before they can or will get better, must recognize the clear and present danger that Bush and his band of neo-cons and religious end time thinkers represent: While the Democrats may be ideologically wondering and weak, Bush and his bunch are not. — They are potentially fascist — that is they will merge the state and the corporations into a seamless and cooperating ruling entity. — The Bush Republican party is serious about endless wars of an imperial nature. — They would do away with civil rights, insisting that any resistance to their agenda is treason. — The are more interested in power than management. — They will render the government unable to ever fund health care, decent schools or any other badly needed program to make America a modern caring state. — Bush and his buddies intend to whither away the state’s role in serving the people in almost every other aspect — no trains, no water management, no air quality controls. — At the same time they will squander public monies on foolish war machines and repressive policing capabilities. — The current leadership and following of the Republican Party will pillage our natural resources. — The Bushites will transfer all wealth into the hands of the top 1 or 2 percent of the people. — They will confabulate patriotism, religion, and nationalism into a totalitarian state system sealed in blood. I would love to find people on the left (or the right for that matter) who will disagree with the above. Finally, sadly, this election is not about furthering a progressive agenda. It is about pulling power from the hands of a minority of fascist dreamers who on the one hand desire the end of the world for religious reasons and seek to dominate the world and its resources on the other. For these reasons we must make sure Bush is not re-elected. The only way to do that is to make sure Kerry and the Democrats gain control of the White House and the Congress.