The argument against ABB is always the same argument. It basically proposes that whichever candidate is too "enabling", "status-quo" or "corporate" is perpetuating the problem in the same way the incumbent does. That folks would still make this argument in the face of Bush's first term shows how logically bankrupt the argument is. But we have seen it before.
'By raising the specter of Bush's extreme policies, the Democratic Party is attempting to sidetrack the masses from vigorous action against the dictatorship of finance capital.... There are some people who fail to see the Democratic forest for the Republican trees'
Sound about right? Could be Nader in 2000, or any number of people dissatisfied with the Dem nominee here. Well, it's neither. Here's the original quote:
'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'
Those of you who know your history will recognize these words as those of Ernst Thalmann, leader of the KPD, Germany's communist party, in the early thirties. Thalmann went on to declare, after the Nazi victories in the 1930 elections, that it would be Hitler's "best day" and that "worse days" were to come. He believed the SPD to be the more insidious enemy of the people, and the Nazis to be too ridiculous to have sustained power over the people for any amount of time. Thalmann later died in Buchenwald.
To his credit, he was dealing with a population that was almost wholly revolutionary--disgusted with the Wiemar republic. To further give some small justification to his actions, the left was split far more violently than it is today. The SPD was the most represented party in the Reichstag, and was bitterly divided from the KPD by some brutal crackdowns on revolts, including the killing of two major communist leaders, which was orchestrated by a SPD defense minister.
You may be saying to yourself that this is total hyperbole. You may think that Hitler is not at all comparable to Bush, and I am just raising this canard in an attempt to distract you from the real enemy. Forgetting how like that sentiment is to Thalmann's quote, I am still happy to answer it. Let's examine what Hitler did early on once his party had gained power.
-Built up fear of shadowy "outsider" enemies (domestic and abroad) to shift blame for failures and to keep populace dependent on and grateful toward the authoritarian regime.
-Demolished civil rights for "undesirable" citizens, and built up bigotry and hate to justify it. Used the threat of "attack" and the promise of "security" to erode the rights of all citizens.
-Consolidated the media, and used it to push the government line. Ask your favorite history teacher how many independent newspapers there were before Hitler's rise to power in Germany, and how many there were afterwards.
-Persecuted leftist leaders. Leaders like Thalmann, many who genuinely wished to better the country, were cruelly put down.
-Put into place a campaign of perpetual war abroad and continual fear and spectacle at home.
Now, to tie this into Bush. Many of you already see where this is going, but I will spell it out in detail. What we have endured in these past years? What has Bush done so far?
-Built up fear of shadowy "outsider" enemies (domestic and abroad) to shift blame for failures and to keep populace dependent on and grateful toward the authoritarian regime. You have your Saddam, Osama, and the domestic terrorists. Sikhs have been beaten in the street because of this nonsense.
-Demolished civil rights for "undesirables". Homosexuals, Middle Eastern immigrants, or protesters--take your pick. This government has consistently played up bigotry and fear to demolish civil rights. Also, they have used the threat of "attacks" to erode the rights of all citizens via the Patriot Act.
-Consolidated the media. FCC chief Michael Powell has done this in an almost ridiculously Orwellian manner, with quotes as "our glorious local media will flourish", and "the evils of media consolidation will never get past our fortifications".
-Persecuted leftist leaders. Nancy Oden and Doug Stuber of the Green Party have experienced this, as has John Dear, a Jesuit priest who whacked an F15 with a hammer in an act of civil disobedience.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/27/02/feature3.shtml-Put into place a campaign of perpetual war abroad and continual fear and spectacle at home. When does the "war on terror" end? Never. What is our news coverage based on? Deadly flus, abductions, and celebrity nonsense.
You still may not be convinced. You may make the argument that since many of the Congressional Dems in the race were collaborators on one level or another, no vote for them can be properly justified if one upholds leftist values. I suppose it depends on what you want to do. I want Bush out, and I am willing to compromise on a collaborator to do so. However, any of the major candidates do not require a significant compromise. Our candidates are all to the left of Bush, and less authoritarian to boot. The greatest change would be made by Kucinich and Sharpton, but I am perfectly happy voting for Kerry or Dean. I would cast my vote without hesitation for Edwards or Clark.
If all you want to do is hold true to your values above all else, vote Cobb (not Nader) or stay home. But if you want to move the country left, the means to do so lies in the Democratic party. Better an enabler than an initiator. Better a marginal turn to the left than a disaster brought on by a lame duck authoritarian regime.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
