The Principle of Anti-ABB: a Primer for the well-intentioned Democrat.

[RichM]

The Democrat is often a well-meaning sort of person, but is afflicted with an unfortunate naïveté. To wit: the Democrat tends to ask the wrong question, & is too easily beguiled by fairy tales.

An example of the "wrong question" is: "How can you say that any Dem isn't better than Bush?" The fact that any Dem is somewhat better than Bush does not really prove that voting "D" is a wise exercise of the franchise.

An example of a "fairy tale" is the notion that Democrats are "opponents" of Republicans, & that they are the morally superior party. Actually, Democrats are PARTNERS of Republicans, and there's an excellent reason for their appearing slightly more attractive to the non-reptilian portion of our populace. Namely, their function in the system is to capture the sympathy of all the well-meaning types -- the peaceful, the humble, the populist, the critics of consumerism (& other such potential troublemakers) -- and thence to siphon that energy off to a destination which will have no effect whatsoever on the distribution of power or inner dynamics of the prevailing social structure.

In other words, when the well-meaning Democrat declares, "I'm voting for Kerry, because at least he's better than Bush!!," the flinty hearts of the financial oligarchs looting our country are gladdened. It is like music to their ears. As they toss down a bit of fine aged cognac, they toast each other, and say, "By God, that is one hell of a clever system we've devised!! Even our worst enemies don't see through it!"

These people adore Democratic Party primary season. They laugh themselves sick to think of all the hard-working volunteers, the tremendous sacrifice of time, energy, and hard-saved dollars -- all poured willy-nilly into the maelstrom of idealism, hope, dreams & aspiration -- and all culminating, as inevitably it does, in the selection of a dull mediocre candidate who will faithfully serve (or at least not seriously challenge) the interests of the oligarchs themselves.

Every time a well-meaning Democrat says, "I'm ABB" -- every time she says, "Well, I'm not happy with Kerry's position on the war, but what the heck! At least he's better than Bush!" -- the spirit of a little oligarch takes wing. For, so long as the gentle, tolerant & peaceful folk are so very willing to be led down this well-trodden path, the oligarchs know they have nothing to fear.

-------------------------- The End. --------------------------

MORAL OF STORY: Voting for Establishment Democrats is what your enemies want you to do -- because they know it can't hurt them. Saying "ABB" is EXACTLY what they want you to do, because it neuters you. What they are most terrified by, deep in their miserable black hearts, is the possibility that some day, a large number of humble tolerant peaceful folk will bolt from the system, and choose either a Dennis Kucinich, or someone even further left whom the oligarchs have no control over whatsoever. THAT is their worst nightmare. Until then, they'll be laughing. Just imagine their laughter this week -- they've already got it narrowed to Kerry and Edwards! They can't lose either way! While the poor well-meaning Democrats are saying, "Kerry will kick Bush's ass," the oligarchs are saying, "Well, we've now got it down to a few acceptable stooges. The election is basically over, except for a few minor details, which we'll arrange next fall. Please pass me that cognac!"

[Frances]

1. I think you have every right to your opinion

but I think you should express it on some other forum. This is a forum for Democrats, not for anti-Democrats.

[mzmolly]

2. The problem is that both sides of this arguement fail to

respect the other. This post included.

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. Applause! Applause! Here's to more OCWD

Only Change Will Do

[Astarho]

54. I like that! OCWD!

Only Change Will Do.
:thumbsup:

[MurikanDemocrat]

4. Then vote 3rd Party. But spare us the bullshit.

[RichM]

20. Aww gee. Does this mean we're not friends anymore?

:cry:

[Jersey Devil]

26. LOL, that kinda cuts right to the chase

I like someone direct and to the point. :)

[MurikanDemocrat]

33. No need to get verbose.

That sums up the initial post quite succinctly. ;-)

[NashVegas]

5. Y'ought Not To Go Round Saying Things Like That

and thence to siphon that energy off to a destination which will have no effect whatsoever on the distribution of power or inner dynamics of the prevailing social structure.

We mustn't have that.

[kiahzero]

6. Planning on voting for Nader?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=372081

Can you say, "Hypocrite?"

[AntiCoup2K4]

7. Why yes I can. I can even spell it, in just three letters

D-L-C

[kiahzero]

17. So, since they're all hypocrites on this issue

How about vote for the most socially liberal one that has a chance of winning?

[diamondsoul]

31. Which would be??

Kucinich naturally.

[kiahzero]

32. Actually

The Democratic nominee, whomever it may be (including Kucinich).

[diamondsoul]

36. Wow! You mean there's someone

on DU without a Kucinich avatar who thinks he HAS a shot to beat the shit out of Bush?! I think I may faint!:evilgrin:

[kiahzero]

41. In a manner of speaking

Realistically speaking, I don't see Kucinich getting out of the primary - he hasn't caught on with the Democratic voters, for whatever reason.

Were he to become the party's nominee, he would certainly have the best chance of beating Bush - The Democratic Party nominee has a host of resources not available to third-party candidates.

Sorry to qualify my statement... I really do like Kucinich supporters; you guys have generally been logical and respectful. It's just that I respectfully disagree with Kucinich's positions on enough issues that I don't support him.

[mhr]

8. Well Said Rich, Thanks For The Post!

eom

[SEAburb]

9. I hate to break this to you, but the repugs control both houses

None of our candidate will be able to do much. If Kucinich was elected pres, he wouldn't get anything passed them. They could override his executive orders. Real change is impossible at this time. Reality is a bitch.

[radiclib]

12. Good.

Stay home.

[RichM]

13. Hey, I'm sure the spinelessness of Dems had nothing to do with that!!

And since even a Kucinich couldn't get any legislation through a Repub Congress, that certainly does mean that the best thing we can do is throw up our hands and just nominate any old piece of shit.

[SEAburb]

21. None of the dem pres candidates are pieces of shit.

Change will come one step at a time. First the White House, then the senate, then the house of rep. Before you can move liberal legislation you have to make the fore mentioned changes first. Your timetable for change is unrealistic.

[diamondsoul]

37. I hate to break this to you

but electing a populist candidate has already once produced a Congress he could work with right on his coat-tails. The same thing would happen with Kucinich because people KNOW the Repubs control Congress!

[Democat]

10. Your post reads like right wing propaganda!

Talk about pseudo-intellectual bullshit.

Let me make it simple for you.

Kerry is a better option than Bush.

One of them is going to get elected.

You can either support Kerry or help Bush.

That is all.

[RichM]

15. No, it doesn't read like "right wing propaganda."

If you'd said "left wing propaganda," maybe you'd have a point.

[radiclib]

11. I've been listening to this shit for thirty years

from people who consider themselves too smart to be duped by the system and refuse to vote so that, as the nation circles the drain, they can feel smugly superior. This is the kind of crap that gives us Nixon, Reagan and God knows how many decades of Bush.

[Armstead]

48. That's because this crap has been going on for 30 years.

I agree with you that sitting it out or voting for a third-party candidate with no chance of winning is not the answer.

But the Democratic complicity with the Republican agenda -- and the results of that -- did not start in 2000. It's an old pattern that has really given is one-and-a-quarter perties, instead of two parties.

I don't think wanting an actual choice to Corporate Rule is being smugly superior.

[Cocoa]

14. even less effective against Kerry

compared to how effective it was against Gore.

Throw in how Bush exceeded everyone's worst fears about how bad he'd be, and you get Nader lucky to get 0.5%.

[RichM]

18. Nader? Did I, or anyone here, say anything about Nader?

A curiously paranoid aspect of the well-meaning Democrat is that as soon as someone challenges Democratic Party orthodoxy, they're accused of supporting Nader.

Why is this assumption so automatic? It's not as though there are no other conceivable alternatives to Establishment Democrats, right? :shrug:

[Cocoa]

23. it's the same argument

it was only four years ago, what did you think, we were all going to fail to recognize this as the same old stuff?

[ModerateMiddle]

46. and your proposed alternative is

what?

:shrug:

[RichM]

49. Alternatives to Establishment Democrats -

Either a serious non-Establishment Democrat, like Dennis Kucinich; or third parties, like Green, or parties with a socialist orientation.

The main point is that staying within absolutely conventional limits is NEVER going to allow real change. That's the PURPOSE of the 2-party system: to make sure that real change can't happen; that the only type of permitted change is cosmetic -- ie, something that shuffles faces, personalities & rhetoric without touching anything fundamental.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. In senate and congressional races I agree

For the presidency this year during the tenure of the WORST FUCKING PRESIDENT EVER, I must disagree.

We already know we disagree so there's no point in arguing that one.

The remainder of your post regarding the Democratic/Republican partnership may or may not extend to the concentration of financial power.

In other domains, the analogy is incorrect.

[oasis]

19. After considering your position, and weighing it against 4 more Bush years

I'll choose ABB.

[HFishbine]

51. But really, you don't.

Kucinich is ABB. Nader is ABB. Why not be upfront and say, nobody but Kerry or Edwards?

[Old and In the Way]

22. May I make a suggestion?

Send this post and $1000.00 to Ralph Nader for President'04. I'm pretty sure Ralph will personally call and thank you for the donation.

[jonnyblitz]

24. good post.

I am doing the ABB thing this time but I agree with you. :toast:

[snoochie]

25. Damn straight

Nice to see not everyone has been scared into submission.

:toast:

What's interesting is that this tactic is used on both democrats and republicans.

In 1996 the RNC scared republican voters away from voting for keyes or mccan and towards dole with the 'electability' factor as well.

Maybe someday enough people will snap out of it to change things. Until then...

[scarletwoman]

27. Bravo, RichM!

And brave of you as well -- I see alot of pitchforks and torches being waved about. The angry peasants would rather burn someone as a witch than question their thralldom to the lord in his castle.

sw

[arwalden]

28. What A Load Of Sanctimonious Bullshit That Message Is

There is no such thing as perfection. Anyone who believes such a thing will be setting themselves up for constant disappointment and failure.

In our system, even though multiple candidate may appear on the ballot.. ONLY TWO candidates have any actual chance of winning.

What subtracts from the weight of votes behind one increases the weight of votes behind the other. All political strategists understand this, and thus all campaigns involve two prongs, one aimed at raising turn-out among one's supporters, and one aimed at depressing turn-out among supporters of one's opponent. It does not matter which proves most effective: what is aimed at is the maximum favorable differential between the number of votes cast for one's candidate, and for the opposing candidate.

The course advocated here by some, to withhold their votes from the nominee of the Democratic Party, in our electoral system, WILL HAVE THE EFFECT of increasing the weight of votes behind the Republican candidate, and could lead to that candidate having more votes than the Democratic candidate. Some people have difficulty in understanding or accepting this simple fact, but that does not make it any less of a fact.

As the Republican Party today represents the worst elements in our government. For anyone to act in the manner suggested is to act in support of the worst elements of reaction in our government. It is, for all practical purposes, to sign on to the enemy's attempt to suppress turn-out favorable to the Democratic nominee.

Such effective co-operation with the worst elements in our government is a damned odd way to demonstrate the zeal of one's attachment to left and progressive principles.

[QC]

30. Well said! n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

42. May I cut and paste this as necessary in the foreseeable future?

[Jen72]

53. well said. It is santimonious and horribly superiour.

n/t.

[corporatewhore]

29. Come on Tweedle Dee has shown us he can vote liberally on a few token

votes like every oe expects him to he is the most liberal electable candidate.
Lets Go accomplish some surface level change!!Tweedledee 04!!!!

[edzontar]

35. I like the one on the left best--he is more "Electable"

HA!!!

Great thread, great graphic.

[diamondsoul]

38. Yeah, AND

he looks more Presidential, too! :P

[snoochie]

43. lol!

No! TweedleDum is the cuter one and he really has a way with words! I trust him to start acting on those words someday, really!

[Desertrose]

34. Good post, RichM...

amazing how one either sees things from this perspective or they don't...sure as hell draws fire, doesn't it?!


Anyhow...thanks for posting this....it seems as though the ABB issue is whipping folks into a state....man!

Peace
DR

[jpgray]

39. Well, I've posted a thread that takes issue with this very argument :-)

You can find it here.

[WillyBrandt]

40. The voice of Narcissus

What a stupid fucking post. If you vote anything but the Dem candidate you increase the probability of people dying and the country going bankrupt. You can spin all the stupid self-indulgent sophistry you want, but that's a fact.

[DrFunkenstein]

44. Kerry Would Be Most Progressive President Since Kennedy

We appreciate that you rage against the machine, but your paranoid fantasies of power merchants drooling over Kerry's plans for shutting down off-shore tax shelters, slashing corporate welfare, and putting together a bad-ass SEC hardly jibe with reality.

Eliot Spitzer? RFK Jr.? 96.5% rating by LCV? Green Scissors awards?

As for Kerry's war position, I think most people here agree with it - and his general foriegn policy - pretty wholeheartedly. It's his IWR vote that pissed us off.

And if cognac is good enough for Snoop Dogg, it's good enough for me. If you need me, I'll be sippin' on some Henn down at the Holiday Inn.

[ModerateMiddle]

47. the people reviling Kerry

have been in the echo chamber too long. Perhaps a few months in the outdoors will help them with this problem, eh?

[eleanor1]

45. I agree.

This post is funny! :-)

[RichM]

50. Hey, thanks!

Let's do lunch, sometime!

[G_j]

52. I think perhaps there is another layer

to the scenario at this point in time.
That is Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfkowitz, Cheney and friends, the neo-con and religious right cults. I suspect that these cult groups are playing a bit out side the box of what even the Cognac drinking country club network you mention is used to. I think they may be richly rewarding/bribing this established old boy network to go even two or three steps further beyond the pale than is customary. Of course, I really don't know because I can't see into those shadows where the real decisions are made.

But this my gut feeling. For this reason I have decided to vote for the more traditional wing of the country club set:
the Kerrys or the Edwards. (My primary vote however belongs to DK)

However, I absolutely love your post and think that it describes well the insideous corruption of this ethically challenged system, just minus the neo-con factor. It's an old boy network, anyone who thinks differently, IMO, hasn't been paying attention or they have deliberately stuck their heads in the sand. My fear is the neo-cons are dragging this even further (or perhaps faster) into the bowels of hell.

thanks again for your post!

[KFC]

55. Dog Shit

You are just afraid of being controlled.

But don't worry. I will be gentle.

[Guaranteed]

56. OCWD! nt

[Nashyra]

57. Maybe it's time to change the name of DU

I can't beleive the anti-Dem rhetoric. Elections are not won on the base, sorry but why in hell should the Dem party not be the representative of a greater majority of the American people, shit the RW that has hijacked this gov't and most Dems are moderate, there is room for the 3rd party platform in the Dem party but there is absolutely no way to even take a foothold in the Repuke party. If you really think there is no difference between the parties that sounds like a personal problem. My candidate did not make it and I was not happy, Dean did not make it, Kucinich is not garnering votes, the Majority of Democrats voting are voting for Kerry, what happened to let the voters decide. I know the press, but Dean had a shot in Iowa and both he and Gephart shot each other in the foot, Clark to me is the best candidate the Dem party had handed to them in decades, the press?, Iowa? mistakes on the campaign trail, bottom line the voters did not catch on. Edwards is getting free press, will it be enough to take over Kerry, I doubt it unless he wants to go negative which will not help either candidate. Nader is getting the free media bump, if he is ignored he will be gone before long. But hey we Democrats know how to effect change, lets kick the shit out of each other, let's be so individual that we can not get in the front door as a team, the Repukes keep getting elected because they are team players when it counts, and then the special interest take over. Why can't we act like a team and when we make it onto the playing field, the WH the Dem special interest groups can shine as indviduals. I know some here are too principled and so righteous that they can not in good concious vote for the Dem nominee. Try telling that to some poor mother and father who is holding the American Flag that covered the body of their son or daughter. If * is re-elected and there is a draft then the supporters of third partys are just as responsible for the continued deaths of our American Soldiers as the whore press that beat the drumbeat to war. The DEMOCRATS are not the Repukes and more important Kerry is not Like Bush. Sorry about the rant, guess I'm not as intelligent as all these 3rd party supporters, nor I guess I'm not smart enough to get the "whole picture". Do me a favor don't forget to Kiss Bush's ass on the way into his second term. Also turn up the volume so you can hear the * laughing at you all the way to his second term.

[Tinoire]

58. Yeah, we'll just change it to "WelcomeHomeReaganDemocrats.com" n/t

[Guaranteed]

59. Yeah, why shouldn't they have supported the war? nt