Why I am anti-war, but will still vote for an IWR candidate

[jpgray]

The bottom line for me is I don't like this war, and I don't want more imperialism. Since that is my view, I will do everything to stop Bush. If I avoided anyone who voted for IWR, I might stay true to principle, but at the same time help cause ANOTHER bloody conflict by depriving the opposition of my vote.

You don't owe your vote to anyone. I don't ask you to pledge loyalty or any of that nonsense. I do ask you to think about what's happening. In the twenties and thirties, Germany had thousands of newspapers, and dozens of active political groups. The opposition to the Nazis was divided. The divisions were made bitter by the corrupt and brutally reactionary Social Democratic party. The KPD, under the undesirable influence of Moscow by the early thirties, mistook reaction for fascism and declared the admittedly monstrous Social-Democrat led government to be the true enemy of the workers. The Nazis they declared were a canard, a paper tiger the Social-Democrats were using to scare the proletariat into voting for the bourgeois Social Democrats.

Ernst Thalmann wrote in December 1931: 'By raising the specter of Hitler's fascism, Social Democracy is attempting to sidetrack the masses from the vigorous action against the dictatorship of finance capital.... There are some people who fail to see the Social Democratic forest for the National Socialist trees'. He confused the murderous Social-Democratic reactionary practices with fascism, and did not realize at the time that Hitler would move to crush all independent political movements in Germany once he solidified his power. Indeed he believed the Nazi success in the election of 1930 would be Hitler's "best day", and that he would have "worse days" from that time forward. Thalmann later died in Buchenwald, if I recall.

In that time we see a familiar argument, although drawn under much more violent and bloody lines than those which make up our fractured Left today. Many leaders of the KPD and other leftist organizations were murdered or imprisoned by the bourgeois Social-Democrats, something thankfully that isn't representative of our quarrels in the left.

There is a feeling on these boards that leaving the Democratic Party to twist in the wind for nominating an IWR supporter is in the interest of liberalism. At any other time, I would heartily agree. At this point however, any slight degree of help for this phenomenally dangerous president's election does not seem to me in any way to advance liberalism.

Once the Republicans consolidate power, what makes you think there will be a chance left for opposition?

Brutally violent and reactionary as it was, the Social-Democrat-led government of pre-Nazi Germany at least contained room for a fractured left, for political movements, and for change. With the economic crisis and failing government, the whole population was revolutionary, and critical thought of the government was ubiquitous and spread by all media. With Hitler in power, hundreds of independent newspapers were wiped out or made into government mouthpieces, and whole political parties and movements were brutalized and coerced out of explicit existence.

We are seeing some of that today, at this very moment.

I agree the Democrats need pressure to move Left, but I don't agree that this is the best time to apply it. If you deny the opposition support against a dangerous Authoritarian, the shift left may be much more painful than anyone could possibly want or wish for, and it will come after a layover in *true* fascism--more brutal and hopeless than you or I can likely imagine. I don't want a left shift from a disaster, I want a left shift from steadily applied pressure. Give Bush and crew the reins for too long, who knows where we'll end up.

These are only my thoughts on the subject--I don't plan to tell you how to vote. If you don't want to vote for an IWR guy, don't vote for him. But there's *always* the risk.

[wysi]

1. Excellent...

... post, very well thought out. Thank you for posting it.

[IndianaGreen]

2. A pro-IWR candidate will not end the war and bring the troops home

A pro-IWR candidate will not end the war and bring the troops home for the simple reason that conditions in Iraq will never go "our" way. We either allow free democratic elections, in which an anti-Western and virulent anti-Israel Shia government will be elected, or we put our own Saddam in power, in which case our troops will have to remain in Iraq to keep him in power by brute force.

BTW, PATRIOT Act and Bush's ability to send to the Gulag any American that he labels an "enemy combatant" is enough proof that the rightwing has all the power it needs to turn us into a police state.

[jpgray]

3. You may be right

But I will give my vote to the Dems this time, even though I will likely agree more with Nader than the Dem nominee. I feel like every year the Republicans own the roost is like a ticking total-fascism time bomb. The parallels in persecuted movements (Green Party leader on "no-fly" list) and the consolidated, government-line all-the-time media are really freaking me out. This aside from the obvious propaganda/corporatism, etc.

A moderate Dem will probably do a lot to make me angry. But at least I will probably be able to complain about it in public. :)

[mot78]

18. Neither will any of the other candidates except for Sharpton and Kucinich

[bahrbearian]

4. Plus you may have no other choice.

[jpgray]

5. Usually "third party" and "home" are options.

Voting Democratic is not a foregone conclusion for me--it depends on the particulars of the election.

Against Bush however, I will stick to the Democrats.

[Maine-i-acs]

6. Please don't forget how horribly they were lied to before voting on IWR

A "Senior Administration official" told Congress how Iraq was ready to salt the whole eastern seaboard with pilotless drones spewing anthrax and botulism ... plus nukes. IWR was another RW put-up job. I feel sorry for the people that were tricked into voting for it.

[jpgray]

7. I won't (nt)

[sleipnir]

8. I don't feel sorry for them, I despise them.

It's like saying "Gosh, I never thought that the evil man in charge would lie to me..." Thousands saw though the Bush-it, why didn't the Pro-IWR people? Their own ingnorace is not a defense for this, the evidence was out there clearly showing that Bush was lying and yet many choose to "believe" him, or rather just protect their own political ass

[Jacobin]

14. I don't feel sorry for clueless gutless leaders. I want them lynched.

I'm constantly amazed at the passes given to the craven idiots who pass for congresscritters we elect to REPRESENT our interests.

Constantly amazed.

Aren't our standards already low enough? License for lunacy has gone far enough. I demand accountability. Failing to do so is LITERALLY killing and maiming our children.

[jpgray]

9. kick (nt)

[jpgray]

10. 'nother kick (nt)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. A good post, but I disagree.

I'm familiar with all that you wrote about Weimar Germany, the SPD, KPD and Thalman's mistaken belief of, "Nach Hitler uns" (after Hitler, us).

But, the SPD was in constant opposition to Hitler as long as there was Reichstag. This is not the case with the Democratic Party of today, which collaborates with the Republicans. Particularly with their votes for the IWR and Patriot Act.

It's my feeling that we must strengthen the left wing of the party, even if it means denying the party, as a whole, our votes.

I'll be voting a straight Democrat ticket this time except for the president if one of the pro-war candidates gets the nomination. Both my senator (Murray) and congressman (Baird) voted against the IWR.

We can allow the collaboritionist wing of the party to continue by voting to condone it. Or, we can oppose that drift to the right by opposing it by voting (or, withholding our votes) a real leftwing party.

[jpgray]

13. I agree about the Democrats

Your position really isn't something I would argue against, or something where I would want to forcibly change your mind. If you don't want to vote for an IWR candidate--DON'T. You certainly don't owe anyone your vote. Just wanted to put up my own thoughts on this touchy issue.

[waldenx]

12. none of your friends are dead in Iraq

the war doesn't affect you so who cares, right?

[Jacobin]

15. But, but think of all the congresscritters' sons and daughters in harm's

way............

oops. I forgot. I think there is only one.....who is stateside.

Imagine that. Must only be a momentary lapse.

[jpgray]

16. I care very much about the war

But I care even more about preventing future wars, protecting civil liberties, indepedent political organizations and media, and the institutions of our government.

I don't like Democratic support for this war, and the authorizations (both IWR and Biden/Lugar) needed more strict requirements. But the main thing for me is to eliminate the neocon administration, and that means voting Bush out.

[Kellanved]

17. Hold on a second

I wonder about your "facts" about my party. They sound as if taken directly from a communist publication and have little to do with the accepted view of the Weimar republic (not to mention reality).

"Brutally violent and reactionary as it was, the Social-Democrat-led government of pre-Nazi Germany..."

About what Government are you exactly talking?

The only Social Democratic president, Friedrich Ebert, died in 1925. Only three Social Democrats were ever appointed Reichs-Chancellor, all three combined were in office little more than 2 and a half years.
Almost all Chancellors belonged to the conservative catholic Zentrum party.

"Many leaders of the KPD and other leftist organizations were murdered or imprisoned by the bourgeois Social-Democrats..."

One example please?
The Weimar Republic had an executive deficit; it utilized the help of paramilitary and often reactionary free corps. Luxemburg and Liebknecht were murdered by one such corps, not by the Government. As for other incidents, You are missing that the communists tried to bring down the republic several times. Others were convicted and confessing cop-killers (some even proud of the fact).

[jpgray]

19. Pretty sure I'm okay on the facts

SPD had the most seats in the Reichstag for a great deal of the period, if I remember--that's where my "Social-Demoocrat-led" comes from. If I use "Social-Democrat" liberally after that, it's only because they were consistently the preeminent party up until the thirties (as I recall, anyway).

As for Luxemborg and Liebknecht, here:

According to the French daily L'Humanite (January 17, 1995), Pabst reaffirms in his Memoirs that he acted on the order of the minister of defence at that time, Social Democrat Noske. “Neither Noske nor I doubted that it was necessary to kill them.”

These unfinished memoirs are now out in the open, 25 years after Pabst's death in the tranquillity of his home (but apparently not with a clear conscience) in what was at that time West Germany, where he received a government pension.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1995/190/190p15.htm

The Communists are not free of blame I agree (kind of the point of my above post), and I would welcome your take on the history--I don't want my facts to be wrong.

[Kellanved]

20. nope

The Social Democrats never held the majority of seats in the Reichstag. Strongest party yes (meaning: 20-25%), majority no.



http://www.gonschior.de/weimar/Deutschland/Uebersicht_RTW.html

As for the Pabst story, you are missing that Noske wasn't minister at the time.
I concede that Noske was a reactionary and had blood on his hands; putting down uprisings was his speciality.

[jpgray]

21. I said "most", not "majority"

Where did I say majority? Noske was still a Social Democrat, which makes it entirely relevant to my above point, concerning bad blood between the parties.

[Kellanved]

22. ugly things happened in the Republic's early years

As they did in it's final years.
However the fact remains: The Social Democrats had most seats, but weren't the dominant party. Most offices were held by Zentrum politicians. Social Democrats were part of only one coalition after 1923; the Zentrum was part of every coalition, but two.

http://www.lsg.musin.de/Geschichte/isb/Plakatanalyse/Modell1/regierungen_der_weimarer_republi.htm

[jpgray]

24. It was a chaotic situation all around

I certainly don't mean to lay blame at anyone's feet--sorry if that's what the post read like.

[genius]

23. Only Kucinich and Sharpton opposed the war. Dean' s support for

Biden-Lugar made his pro-war as Bush's actions fit perfectly within Biden-Lugar.

[pdx_prog]

25. Candidates that voted FOR

the IWR did so because they believed that Saddam could be a threat, and could very well posses WMD's. We all know now that he wasn't and didn't. These candidates voted with their brains and hearts and NOT down party lines. We elected them to office and I for one respect their decision just as I respect the ones that voted against it. No one had a crystal ball to look into and say that Saddam wasn't a threat. There was a very REAL possibility that he was.

For anyone to say that they will only vote for a candidate in the general election that opposed the IRW might as well just stay at home and do nothing. Stand behind the party that will cure our problems. Don't cut your nose off to spite your face. That is ludicrous.