Paula makes a legitimate point here about the "interests" involved in the election. However, I would basically say that (a) it is almost impossible to say that electing Gore vs. electing Bush will mean I (or someone) will get benefit X, whereas I won't if Bush is elected and Gore isn't. It far too convoluted for that. And (b) there is clearly a short-vs.-long term issue at bottom here. IF one could for sure say that electing Gore vs. electing Bush WAS going to affect benefit X, then I would say beneficiaries of benefit X should vote for Gore. [corollary: the rest shouldn't] On the other hand, think of the millions whose futures will be greatly enhanced if the corporate-run machinery of government has to respond to a popular-based movement demanding, for example, universal single-payer health insurance; or a movement that makes it impossible to expand the power of global capitalism, in fact begins to contract its power and make it accountable to / bounded by ecological, social welfare, civil rights, and labor interests. Again, it boils down to whether you see the 'harm difference' of Bush as significantly greater than the 'harm difference' of the continuation of the Gore-Bush Republicratic government owned by corporate conglomerates giving over more and more of our world to them. I sure don't, so the only answer is to start building a mass movement on the left, grounded in the people and articulated by nationally notable folks like Nader. To the Democrats, like Barney Frank, Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice (8 times?), shame on me. Folks like Jesse Jackson & Gloria Steinem, etc. make me ill. They are so close to power, they can't see the world beyond it. Ted Morgan PNFPNF@aol.com wrote:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/05/00 EST