|
some of them successful. In fact, George Washington was "drafted." After he generaled the revolutionary war to success, he wanted to retire, like Cincinnatus, to his farm. But he was the "unity" candidate needed to solidify the revolution and firmly establish the new republic. He was talked into running, and was the consensus candidate for first president of the U.S.
We now have a new re-founding of our democracy to undertake. We have suffered a fascist coup--of the sort that Washington, Jefferson, Madison and other founders greatly feared--an out-of-control president embarking on wars of choice. It also has elements of what FDR called "organized money." ("Organized money hates me--and I welcome their hatred." --FDR), and elements of Eisenhower's dreaded "military-industrial complex." In summary, our government has been taken over by global corporate predators and war profiteers--who have run amok, entirely outside of our control, and who--very significantly--have now 'privatized' the counting of our votes (with electronic machines run on 'trade secret,' proprietary code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations), so that the ultimate corrective in democracy--votes of the people--cannot right the ship of state, cannot "throw the bums out," cannot implement reform, cannot elect a Congress that will curtail the executive and save the Constitution, and cannot prevent the massive looting of our public treasuries (not to mention mass slaughter of innocent people in a foreign land to get their oil).
In this context, the division in the Democratic Party between those who colluded with this fascist coup vs. the rising tide of the grass roots--the people--who reject that collusion, and see Obama as the candidate for changing both the party and the country--is a very serious matter, indeed. I have described the Clinton campaign very negatively--as the collusive Democrats--because that's how I see it, although I don't know--I really and truly don't know--if it will be good or bad for the country if she is elected (or, rather, 'selected'). It may be that a compromise with the global corporate predators and war profiteers is the only safe route--albeit a meandering one--back to democracy. We should never for a minute underestimate the viciousness of the murderous fuckheads who are running things. And their chief enemy is us--we, the people; we the great, peace-minded, justice-minded American majority. They will not permit the people to rule. And the Obama candidacy is a people-driven, rather than "organized money"-driven, campaign. If it succeeds, it will put a president in the White House who is beholden to the people. That is to be prevented at any cost--even at the cost of an over-the-top election theft that is so obvious that it threatens the future power of the election theft corporations over our election results.
So-o-o-o, a Gore candidacy is a way out of this profound struggle within the Democratic Party--between the colluders and the reformers. The colluders want more, well...collusion, with a 'liberal' tinge. Maybe that is a wise course. Who knows? Maybe we can work on election reform, under Clinton, bide our time, and get our democracy back (overthrow the corporate rulers) eventually. Obama supporters want serious reform now. Maybe that is just not possible. There are numerous ways that it could be sabotaged--from the rigged voting machines (s)electing McCain, to (if the voters overcome that obstacle, say by sheer turnout, and put Obama in the White House) dozens of fascist/corporate scenarios to destroy such a presidency. And I want to pause here and mention the route that South America has taken back to democracy--after decades of U.S.-supported heinous dictators--and that is, first of all, liberal/progressive measures of election reform(!), and, secondly, awesome grass roots organization among the poor. It has taken time. But there are now good, leftist (majorityist), democratic governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and Nicaragua (and soon Paraguay). That is the overwhelming trend in South America, and it bodes well for here. But I repeat, it takes time. And one of the stages this revolution in South America has gone through is a period of failed 'liberal,' "free trade," compromising governments that kept favoring the rich and foreign (often U.S.-based predator) corporations, to the great detriment of the country.
An Al Gore candidacy could be a way out of our party's dilemma--its fracturing along collusive vs. reform lines--and a way of avoiding several dangerous scenarios: a McCain presidency (more Bush fascism--fast route to disaster); an insufficiently reformist Clinton presidency, marked by civil disorder, in which the blame for Bush's economic catastrophe gets placed on the Democrats, and gets followed up with some sort of Hitler II scenario in 2012; and an Obama presidency that gets gravely sabotaged (another 9/11 comes to mind), which might also be followed by more and worse fascism. The people of this country need a unifier--a steady, experienced hand--with a positive, enterprising program (such as the "greening" of our energy sector). Al Gore stands head and shoulders above McCain; he was elected VP twice, and president once; he would not likely abide a second stolen election; and, even if he is, in essence, a corporatist, he has come a long, long way since his pro-NAFTA days in understanding the role of global corporate predators in global warming and on our failure to address global warming--the biggest crisis the human race has ever faced. Gore is strongly committed to lawful, Constitutional government. His speeches on this matter have been extraordinary. He will restore order. And his candidacy would represent the restoration of the proper order of things. He towers over everyone, as the commanding, unifying presence that is needed. He would be more in the manner of a George Washington, a Cincinnatus, an FDR, or an Eisenhower, as to calming the country down, preventing petty political fracturing, and bringing out our best qualities as a people: our creativity, our generosity and our industriousness.
I wouldn't dismiss this possibility--merely because he said no to running in the primaries. A convention fight is developing that could well destroy the Democratic Party if it is not resolved in unity behind a presidential candidate. The current situation is hauntingly similar to 1968, on the war issue. (Anti-war candidate Robert Kennedy, who was heading for victory at the convention, had been shot and killed, and war-compromised Hubert Humphrey was nominated, amidst a police riot against antiwar demonstrators outside the convention. Humphrey then lost narrowly to Richard Nixon.) But things are even worse now--with war complicit corporate 'news' media and rigged voting machines. We need a candidate who is too well connected to be harmed, but still essentially on our side--on the side of the people, and of democracy--who wouldn't tolerate a stolen election, and who could truly put the country back together again.
The crisis we face now, on fronts, on all issues, is at least as great as the crises of our initial revolution, the Great Depression and WW II--if not more so, in that we also face the potential death of planet earth. The utterly trivial matters that possess the 'news'--Obama's pastor, for godssakes, or Clinton's exaggeration about being under fire--are simply mind-boggling. What will it take to pull us out of this nightmare primary campaign, and put us back on the path to restoring our democracy and our country? It may well require both candidates to step aside, and get behind someone with stature and experience like Gore--someone we can all agree on.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
