Are we losing sight of the big picture here?

[jpgray]

I see a lot of excuses to avoid working to elect Kerry, but I don't see many real reasons. The country will be immeasurably worse under four more years of Bush, and it would be far better to have Kerry in his place. Kerry is by no means my ideal candidate, but I don't think anyone here would dispute the above statement, so why do some look for reasons to oppose Kerry rather than reasons to defeat Bush?

In just one example of the odd thinking here, up to 1.15 million women marched on the capitol in defense of their right to choose. This is a very important right that is under a dangerous level of attack, and the field of battle is often in the courts. Now, do you recall some noise about retiring justices of the SCOTUS? Do you recall some radical right wing and racist appointments to our nation's courts? Kerry is unequivocally pro-choice, and advocates a litmus test for judicial appointments on the issue. I see an outpouring of support for the protest and anger over the attempts to scale back women's rights on this board, yet also I see people dismiss Kerry as "Bush-lite" and proudly say while they will vote for him, they'll never work for him or donate money. Which is it? Do you care about women's rights and a justice system clean of right wing ideologues? If you do, is it that you don't care enough about it to work for Kerry or give money to him?

The biggest quarrel with Kerry is over Iraq. His current statements, that Iraq should be "de-Americanized" in contracts and in political control are head and shoulders above Bush's plans, who wants to keep the four permanent bases and graft-filled contracts. Kerry's statement that the war on terror should be more a law-enforcement operation than a military operation is also vastly superior to Bush's "you 'harbor terrorists', we invade" method of fighting terrorism. For these reasons alone, a Kerry presidency would save the lives of innocents abroad and American soldiers.

Kerry, again, is not my ideal candidate--I'd much prefer a Norman Thomas type in his place. But Kerry is far more sympathetic to progressive causes than the alternative, and he is our only chance to defeat Bush and in the process move the country left. For those two reasons, I can't do anything else but work for him, donate to him, and vote for him. People generally agree he is different, but then say he is not different enough. For a woman who wants control over her body, or a child in Syria who has the misfortune to live in a country that 'harbors terrorists', the difference between Kerry and Bush has quite a significance to it.

There isn't much distance between standing at the edge of a cliff and standing a few steps back from the edge, but given a choice between the two, it seems many people would rather wait at the edge until they have an opportunity to leap back twenty feet rather than start stepping back as soon as possible. Bush hasn't taken us over the cliff, but he's given us ample evidence that a lame duck term could be terrifying--let's take some steps back while we can. There are thousands of reasons not to vote for Kerry, but to me there seems to be a few much more compelling reasons to work for him, not least of which the fact that he is the only chance to get Bush out.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. Bravo!

Excellent analysis, thank you. BTW, your taste in music is exquisite too.

[jpgray]

2. Thanks for your response-ah! (nt)

[jpgray]

3. I'll watch it go down one more time (nt)

[WilliamPitt]

4. No you won't

:toast:

[VelmaD]

5. That was beautiful

:yourock:

Well said.

[Larkspur]

6. Hey, I'm sure the bank will give him another loan on his mansion

I'm sure Teresa Heinz can seduce them again. With her help, Kerry doesn't need mine or my money.

Oh, I will cast my vote for Kerry but it's really a vote against Bush, not a vote FOR Kerry. After election, I'll continue to be critical of Kerry, who will be more concerned with getting re-elected than doing what is right for this country.

[jpgray]

8. Who cares about any of that nonsense?

We have a chance to get Bush out of office, and I would think a progressive with extra time or money should feel it his or her duty to get this guy out. I know it's worth my time and money to do so. I want this country to move left, and the first big step is getting Kerry in and Bush out, because Kerry is way more sympathetic to progressive causes than Bush, and it will make a world of difference besides to those whose lives Bush will directly harm or destroy.

[ulysses]

7. what *is* the big picture?

I suspect we'd define it differently.

[jpgray]

9. You don't move the country left by leaving Bush in power

Therefore, to get Bush out, Kerry is the only reasonable option. He is far more sympathetic to progressive views, and this affects myriad things. It affects media coverage, it affects West Virginian homeowners who have to worry about coal slurry swamping their homes because of deregulation, it affects the persecution of Green Party leaders, who were held by the secret service as they attempted to fly to conventions, it affects women who want the right to choose, it affects children in the Middle East, since Kerry believes the war on terror is about law enforcement and not military invasions.

It is in the interest of every progressive to create an environment more suitable to promote progressive views. Kerry is better for that than Bush, and therefore we should work as hard as we can to get him in there in place of Bush. Four more years of Bush besides is an incredibly dangerous thing.

[ulysses]

10. agreed, but.

It is in the interest of every progressive to create an environment more suitable to promote progressive views. Kerry is better for that than Bush, and therefore we should work as hard as we can to get him in there in place of Bush.

I can work with that, with the caveat that using Bush as the benchmark, simply being "better than Bush", is not enough for the longer term.

[jpgray]

12. No, it most certainly isn't

There are two schools of thought on this, I think. One is that a right wing authoritarian government will galvanize people and help progressive causes more as a result than electing a slightly more sympathetic administration. The other is that moving in a progressive direction, however slight, is much better than leaving authoritarian folks in power. I don't know which is correct, and I don't think anyone really does. I personally think the latter is correct, based in part on the imperfect analogy of authoritarian ascension in the face of divided opposition in 1930s Germany. The KPD leader Thalmann's argument was basically Nader's, that the marginally different opposition was worse to have in power than the authoritarian right wingers, since they didn't galvanize the populace and were just "friendlier" fascism.

It was proven wrong then, but I don't know that I could say it is wrong now. I would say that Kerry is not the perfect progressive candidate I want, and probably there will be instances where I will have to protest his decisions, even though I will have worked for him and have paid him my money.

[ulysses]

14. one alternative, if not *the* alternative,

is to blow the whole thing open, metaphorically speaking. Quit nibbling at the edges, quit playing footsie with both the center and the disaffected right, and just stand for that for which you stand.

It's easy to blame the German left for Hitler's rise to power, but what part did the centrists in power play?

[jpgray]

15. Some Social Democrats in Germany were pretty brutal

With one Social-Democrat defense minister orchestrating the murder of two KPD leaders, the opposition had a lot of reason to be divided. We aren't at that point at all with the Democrats, and in fact some who actually represent our values, such as Kucinich, are present in the party. But Social Democratic pluralities and majorities, while brutal, were not brutal to the point that they crushed all opposition, consolidated all media into one state-controlled entity, began to kill off minorities and started crazy imperialist wars. If Thalmann had known that would have happened, I doubt he would have claimed that the Nazis were a paper tiger as he did.

You can't really blame the left, and you can't really blame the center, I'm just interested in figuring out what the best strategy is to ease the country back from insanity with as little suffering on all sides as possible.

[Bill Todd]

11. You also don't move it left by putting the DLC in power

- at least not very far left: rather, you gain a modest amount at the expense of any future prospects for improvement.

Thanks, but I'm not willing to let the party put me in that bind. If it wants my vote and other support, it's going to have to earn it: just not being Bush isn't enough, when Kerry appears to be doing everything he can to minimize the distance between them.

Your mileage may vary, of course. Just don't expect every Democrat to favor the route that you've chosen. And why you felt it was necessary to initiate yet another thread rehashing the same thoughts that have been aired to the point of stupefaction here already escapes me.

- bill

[jpgray]

13. The idea is to create the most sympathetic environment possible

Bush creates an environment that is positively reactionary. Green leaders have been detained by the Secret Service, FCC chiefs are organizing a consolidated state media as we speak, and deregulation is creating a system of untouchable corporations that are exempt from the concerns and rights of citizens.

The media helped to destroy Dean, and the lack of sympathy for his views made his candidacy become defined as "angry", "out of touch", and "unelectable". I would take my chances with a Kerry appointed FCC over one appointed by Bush. If I were a child in Syria or a woman who valued her right to choose, I would prefer Kerry be Commander in Chief over Bush, and I would prefer Kerry make judicial appointments over Bush.

That's what it's about. And those things are all worth working and paying for, in my opinion.