Re: [sixties-l] Re: sixties-l-Gore v. Bush

From: Ted Morgan (
Date: Fri Jun 23 2000 - 19:57:38 CUT

  • Next message: Jeffrey Blankfort: "Re: [sixties-l] Vietnam Memorial and flags"

    Stew makes a very good point about building a movement that someday could elect a
    Nader.... But that's as far as I go with him on his 'lesser of two evils'
    argument. Without repeating stuff I said earlier, let me just point to this:
    Stew says "Gore is very bad -
    and he too endorses executions - but Bush had made them his private hobby."
    Which suggests to me that he feels Bush's inner "intentions" are different from
    Gore's. But doesn't building a movement, being activist, etc. build pressures on
    whomever is in power, and doesn't power respond (in an electoral --i.e. minimal--
    democracy) to growing public pressure (cf. his comment about Clinton if Seattle
    had been "earlier"). So, I guess you're vote is based upon your
    belief/perception that Bush is somehow "apolitical" --that he is driven by his
    innermost beliefs about, among other things, capital punishment. That's a
    stretch for me; I don't think that kind of person is likely to climb very high in
    US centrist politics. I don't waste much time on Bush, but I suspect he has
    transformed his "message" to reflect what he considers his power base &
    So, then, how do you build a radical movement when the only kind of visibility it
    can achieve in the mainstream media is denigrated, stigmatized & marginalized as
    "wacky" or "revolutionary" or whatever epithet you want to use. That won't
    change until there are real "openings" IN that media system, and the existence of
    viable 3rd parties, visible candidates like Nader, etc. crack through. Thus..
    back to my earlier reasons...

    > re- Gore v. Bush
    > Jeff is quite right here. We are in deep trouble. And of course radical
    > change comes from the streets not the election booths. Though it can be
    > ratified by elections. My sense of the Clinton administration is that if
    > "Seattle" happened six years sooner, Clinton would have been somewhat better.
    > Again, as to Gore v. Bush, Bush is not Dole, he represents something a lot
    > worse. His ties to the Christian Right are programmatic. They come out of his
    > "compassionate conservatism" - the right-wing church takes over programs that
    > should be administered by the government. Also, he is the most murderous
    > governor in the country - and his stupid remarks about all his "official"
    > killing has put him way over the edge of lesser evil. Gore is very bad -
    > and he too endorses executions - but Bush had made them his private hobby.
    > Let's build a movement that someday could elect a Nader and not just have him
    > run as a spoiler for the right.
    > Stew

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 23 2000 - 23:43:36 CUT