[sixties-l] nadirs of gore in the bush

From: PNFPNF@aol.com
Date: 11/05/00

  • Next message: Bill Mandel: "Re: [sixties-l] Critique of Bruce Franklin >"

    Recent posts (or forwards) to the list have stated, in one case, disbelief 
    "that election of Bush will make things one bit worse for those who are poor, 
    hungry, [etc.]", and in another case, that Reagan's administration was 
    "responsible for creating...mass homelessness (nationwide)."  But the point 
    is not the possible contradiction in these views.
      When we vote on Tuesday (or voted, if with an absentee ballot), we are, if 
    clear-eyed, helping to decide between excess deaths and suffering over the 
    next few years.  
    For, that "no difference" between G. and B., D. and R., can be that teensy 
    morsel between lesser and greater evil that determines whether some among the 
    worst off go off the ledge. 
    On the other hand, a continuance of an, effectually, rightwing demoplican 
    politics is, as usual and worse, taking us all down, and there may 
    be--possibly--with Nader and the Greens a chance, if labor (inc. new labor 
    forces) get involved, to build a third party (--though, on the other hand, 
    with a risk of siphoning the strength and hope from the anti-WTO etc. 
      This is not new; we have said all this.  But don't cover it up with 
    "there's no difference" or "it won't affect the poor, the hungry" if Bush 
    wins this round--or that voting for Nader not Gore won't affect the tally.  
    If you vote for Nader, you are risking, in fact, throwing n women and babies 
    on the street, denying m persons health care, killing a certain number, over 
    the next few years--and perhaps setting up for same (or, yes, perhaps for 
    better times) in the long term.  If you vote for Gore, you are risking a 
    somewhat lesser death toll, probably, (domestically), of this sort, for the 
    short-term, but losing a chance for the long-term.  (Not voting, of course, 
    doesn't solve this.)
      The people out on the street (I don't mean demonstrating), or in danger of 
    it, know this.   My concern is not that we, on this list, don't--I think we 
    do--but that we need to "know" it, to recognize the stakes, non-abstractly (I 
    don't mean nonintellectually), in the same way.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/06/00 EST