Thesis: until we stop trying to be safe, things will get worse

[Mairead]

Once again we have an election shaping up in which no matter who wins, we lose. And the siren song of 'let's do what we must to get past this terrible point and then we can fix things' is a lie because there's always going to be a threat that requires everyone to sacrifice their wellbeing in the interest of Getting/Keeping The Monster Out. The corporatists are always going to demand that everyone, just one more time, To Preserve Civilisation As We Know It, vote for The Lesser Evil (tm).

Until we collectively say Pull The Other One, It Hath Got Bells On, we're going to go on being scammed and suckered, and be dragged inch by inch to The Pit until one day we lose the last of our footing and go over the edge.

And, in fact, we are very probably already at that point, in case someone's been holidaying with the !Kung San in the Kalahari Desert since December 2000.

Coup2000, the USAPATRIOT Act, Guantanamo, imprisonment forever without trial, endless unprovoked militarism...these are all signs that today --yes, at this very moment-- we have one foot over the edge and are teetering madly with a few trying to get us to make a leap for safety while more scream 'Let go! Jump in! We must jump in! We must destroy ourselves to save ourselves!'

Will we take a risk and try to escape, or windmill into free-fall and the survivors look for scapegoats?

[OneBlueSky]

1. well, the sad fact is that the American people are not ready . . .

to do that yet . . . about half of them still support George Bush . . . and since taking Bush down is the only way to possibly save this nation in 2004, taking a risk with our nominee is something we just can't afford to do . . . if I thought for one minute that Dennis Kucinich had any chance at all of being elected, I'd support him completely . . . sadly, I believe that if he were the nominee, he wouldn't carry a single state . . .

will we be voting the lesser of two evils again this year? . . . of course . . . that's what we do in every election . . . will it ever change? . . . not unless there is a sea change in the mindset of the electorate . . . that may happen someday, but not this year . . .

[Mairead]

2. And if this is the year that we finally topple into full-blown fascism

what then? Are you one of those who believes that It Can't Happen Here even though it is happening here? Or do you perhaps hope to escape if the worst happens, which of course you believe it can't possibly? Or are you one of the ones who's secretly cheering the impending Collapse Into Pit? How can you feel so comfortable?

(I'm not trying to pick on you as a person, btw, but only as an avatar)

[redqueen]

10. No, half of them do not support GW Bush.

Please don't buy media spin. :)

[goodhue]

18. waiting for the American people to be ready for big change

is no way to go. They will get ready when the change is upon them.
We are the ones we have been waiting for. The greater risk we take in not pursuing big change is strong likelihood of four more years of current administration.

[library_max]

3. If the situation was as you describe it, you'd be right.

But it isn't. There are miles and miles of difference between Bush and Kerry. Here's a link to Kerry's voting record, just for starters.
http://forum.johnkerry.com//index.php?s=5344f11361da6351da2408d137a63331&showtopic=215

Kerry is a well-established pro-environment liberal and Ted Kennedy ally. 9/11 warped politics for everybody in late 2001 and in 2002, but that time is past. Kerry is out against the war and against the problematical parts of the PATRIOT ACT.

If what you want to do is overthrow the economic system of the country, well, the electorate doesn't want that and they aren't going to want it no matter who we nominate or support. If we nominate a Green, we'll get the Green result - 3% of the popular vote, 0% of the electoral vote.

Look at history and you'll see that all good changes came incrementally. They came when the national mood shifted in a progressive direction and they came when people of good will were in positions of power and influence to help them along. None of those things will be helped by the election of George Bush. All of them would be helped by the election of John Kerry.

It's useless politics to squall because we can't get everything we want. Politics doesn't work that way. It's a matter of majorities and coalitions, not a matter of screaming or holding our breath until we turn blue.

[Desertrose]

4. if the electorate doesn't know they have a choice....

how will we ever know if they want change?

If they get to hear things explained from the other side of the looking glass....if they get to make an actual CHOICE and they choose not to change, then you can say that.

How can you honestly believe most voters have a clue what has/is being done to them?? You post on this board- you know the media lies and spins all the news-or simply blacks it out.

Change may happen incrementally but the reason to make those changes is not incremental...it ia always preceded by the big "AHA" moment that you realize things really do need to change.....
John Kerry is not that AHA moment...in fact, there is only incremental change with him and what movement does that allow for?? not much that can be seen with the naked eye....

Thanks you for your take on politics.....do you think the revolutionists who wanted to change things back in the history of the US sat around and formed coalitions and committees?? Yeah, right and god save the queen.

DR

[Mairead]

5. "Kerry is a well-established pro-environment liberal"

You have the tense wrong: he was one. Or perhaps the definition of 'liberal' now includes votes indistinguishable from GOP votes, that's always a possibility even if it leaves us nowhere to turn.

Of course, having 'liberals' vote with the GOP is more or less the definition of being pushed over the edge into The Pit.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. Kerry will be a much better version of Clinton

and that's enough for quite a lot of people to get behind and root for.

[Mairead]

7. Will he? How do you know?

I'd like to believe that 'our' politicians won't sell us out, but that's exactly what they've been doing, isn't it? So what makes you believe in Kerry? There was a huge outcry in Mass against his impending IWR vote, but he voted for it anyway (prompting Randy Forsberg, a longtime supporter, to oppose him for reelection).

Why do you believe It Can't Happen Here?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. Because Kerry owes a debt to JFK among others

once he gets in the WH he will make good on the promise of why he got into to this whole thing in the first place.

[Mairead]

19. Again: how do you know? Has he committed to that as a written policy?

[Iverson]

8. again, The Principle of Unripe Time

The Principle of Unripe Time states that an admittedly right action cannot be undertaken because the time at which it can be undertaken is not yet ripe.

Experience teaches us that time has a way of going rotten before it gets ripe.

[Mairead]

13. " time has a way of going rotten before it gets ripe"

Exactly!

And plenty of people wouldn't recognise ripe time if it spontaneously squirted juice into their faces.

[mzmolly]

9. I haven't taken any pledges right now because I'm not ready to *commit*

to the ABB or "let the Dems lose to prove a point pledge."

However, I tend to view things in this manner generally speaking:

Democrats make progress, though at times it's lower then I would like.

Republicans undo progress.

Democrats move us forward, Republicans move us backward. How much farther backward do I want to go. Looking at the past 4 years, I'd say not too much. They've managed to do a helluva lot of harm in this short time.

The longer Rethugs are in office, the more of a mess we are left to deal with, thus keeping us from moving forward in the manner we could. We have a huge international and domestic mess to worry about already. How much progress can be made in a state of emergency?

So, I guess in the end, I'll take small steps forward over giant steps backward anyday.

Though, again I've not taken any pledges *

[redqueen]

11. I'm doing all I can to avoid the free-fall

What amazes me is that people SEE for themselves that the Iraq war was based on lies and hype, but they'll make any excuse they have to to justify to themselves that voting for a politician who helped bush by either believing or callously helping to sell those lies is somehow OK.

People want to try to act like the IWR vote was no big deal. They want to believe it didn't really matter, because bush would have done it anyway. What I cannot for the life of me understand is how they can avoid realizing that these candidates HELPED bush!

The Democratic Party is an empty shell of what it once was. And the voters are the reason. :(

[Raya]

12. Kerry is the RISKY PROGRESSIVE option. Dean was put forward as the SAFE

politically moderate candidate. That is a fact of the origin of the Dean campaign before Trippi convinced him to vocally oppose the War.

Remember, Kerry is the one who was viewed as having such a crazily liberal record (ADA 93% LCV 96% -- only Wellstone more radical in senate) that he could not be elected.

That has been why Kerry has been nixed as a Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate time and time again.

Those are the facts. This campaign seems to have turned things upside down.

[Mairead]

15. You make a good point, Raya!

He's getting beaten up by the rightwingers as a nasty commie pinko, while the lefties here are beating him up for being nowhere near pinko enough anymore.

I think it's that hard-right turn he did. :(

[arendt]

17. Can you stop "shouting" with the oversized bold typeface. Thanks. n/t

n/t

[revcarol]

16. There's something about that catchy old saying...

continuing to do things the same and expecting the results to come out differently.

The lesson: a corporate shill stomping on the common people, with the label "D", will not accomplish anything.

TIME FOR A KUCINICH 180!!