A belated response to this email; sorry, but it came in "below the surface" in my
emails and I didn't see it.
I voted for (and worked for) Nader in 2000 not because there was "no difference
between the two candidates," but because the relatively small difference between
the two was overwhelmingly outweighed as a vote consideration by the similarities
between the two candidates (and parties) and the need to build a movement to, at
the very least, push the Democrats to the left (if not open up the system to some
reforms that would make a third party a viable option in American politics).
Nothing else was doing this --organizing, voting for liberal Democrats (those few
who ran), protest, etc. So, 3rd party organizing seemed a good vehicle. I still
consider the differences between Bore and Gush to be pretty minimal, despite Gore's
recent speech against the war. Can you imagine that he was doing anything but
trying to stake our "room" / support for a potential run, distinguishing himself
from the other potential candidates like Kerry, Gephardt and others who buckled &
fell in line with the Administratin?). I truly doubt, given his past record
(towards Iraq, for example) that a President Gore would have behaved much
differently in the post-9/11world, although he MIGHT not be pushing an all-out
assault against Iraq. Bear in mind his wholehearted support for the Gulf war, for
the steady US/UK bombing in Iraq since that war, for sanctions, etc. that have been
causing "mass destruction" among the Iraqi people, etc. So, I would suggest that
as much as we might be glad that Gore spoke out when he did, we shouldn't get
seduced into believing there's a major difference between a Bush and a Gore
administration. Yes, some environmental executive actions, etc. The
differences/similarities/need for an organized alternative arguments still stand as
far as I can see. We will always have to settle for crumbs until a mass
mobilization occurs that can pose a threat at the ballot box (or has to be
considered by elected officials because of its numbers). The only time I can
justify not voting for a Green (or Labor party ...) candidate is if the Democratic
candidate is truly progressive (most of the time) as Wellstone arguably was
(overlooking a few areas). Even Nader endorsed him.
TODD JONES wrote:
> I hope we, on the sixties list are not immune to self criticism.
> Two years ago, a number of us on this list argued in support of voting for
> Ralph Nader (even thought that would probably help elect Bush) by arguing
> that "There was no real difference between the candidates. "
> I hope people have the capacity to admit that this belief was wrong.
> Thousands of Iraqis (and some Americans) are likely to die in Bush's
> military strikes, deaths that would not have occurred, or would not have
> occurred in the same numbers if Gore were president.
> The Iraqis who lose family members will know all too well how silly it was
> for us to say there was no difference between the parties and the
> candidates. There were many life-and death-defining differences.
> Todd Jones
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 21:21:36 -0700
> > From: radtimes <email@example.com>
> > Subject: "Without Struggle, There is No Progress"
> > "Without Struggle, There is No Progress"
> > Friend, Americans, Countrymen...
> > http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs1004.html
> > October 4, 2002
> > by RON JACOBS
> > October 20, 1990--Twelve years ago almost to the day I was at a rally in
> > Olympia, Washington that was called to oppose the upcoming war against Iraq.
> > Back then, we were told by the administration in DC that the reason for that
> > war was to drive Iraq from Kuwait-a country it had recently invaded and
> > occupied. Today-almost twelve years later, the regime in DC is proposing to
> > do the exact same thing to Iraq-invade and occupy it. Why? Well, it depends
> > on which week's White House press release you read. According to Bush,
> > Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the axis leaders, it is necessary to make
> > war on Iraq because (and these are just the first four supposed reasons that
> > pop into my head):
> > a) Saddam's military is a nuclear threat,
> > b) Saddam's military used poison gas against the Kurds in northern Iraq and
> > against Iranians in wars where the United States supported Iraq, or the US
> > needs to make war on Iraq because
> > c) (and I love this one) Such a war would liberate Iraq's women-yeh right,
> > Old GW, the Susan B. Anthony of the 21st century (today Iraq's women being
> > more equal to men than most other countries in the world much less the Arab
> > world).
> > d) He has weapons of mass destruction that threaten the region.
> > Let's talk about these: the reasons given by the Bush administration are not
> > only poor reasons to go to war, they are just plain lies. Some of you might
> > be shaking your heads and thinking I'm misinformed and misguidedor, even
> > worse, an apologist for Saddam. After all, Saddam might have nuclear weapons
> > and he definitely gassed those people. Heck, maybe he even has other weapons
> > of mass destruction. Without granting legitimacy to these possibilities, let
> > me make a couple things clear-every single international agency that studies
> > nuclear proliferation has stated quite clearly that Iraq does not have
> > nuclear capability and is years away from even beginning to develop such
> > weapons. Hell, even Tony Blair's dossier said this-probably one of the few
> > truths in that entire piece of hearsay. As for the gas-yes this did
> > happen-what's left untold in this story is that the US provided the
> > chemicals and lent tacit support to the attacks because at the time Iraq's
> > war against the Kurds and Iranians were seen as serving US interests. On top
> > of that, the man who ordered some of those attacks, General Nizar
> > Al-Khazraji, is now one of the United States' top candidates for Saddam's
> > job if the US is able to defeat the Iraqis and put in a client regime. What
> > about those weapons of mass destruction? I say, what about them? One certain
> > way for them to be used (if they even exist in the physical plane and not
> > just in the minds of Bush and Cheney) is to attack Saddam's military.
> > Additionally, one can easily argue that it is the US weapons of mass
> > destruction that truly threaten the region, not Iraq's.
> > But all these reasons are ultimately irrelevant. The real reason for this
> > attack can be found in a paper Dick Cheney finished writing not too long
> > before that rally I was at twelve years ago-a paper whose composition was
> > funded, by the way, by Gulf Oil, the chemical and munitions industries, and
> > Rockwell International, the defense and aerospace conglomerate. As many of
> > you probably know, the premise of that paper (which is now the primary
> > operating document of the Bush foreign policy team) is that the US has every
> > right to be the only superpower and should use that power to expand and
> > ensure its continued domination. Of course, the language is not usually that
> > blunt. Instead, this plan for world domination is phrased in terms like
> > security and democracy. And freedom. Unfortunately for everyone, it will
> > bring neither, not even for those who champion it. It won't bring security
> > for Bush and crew because it will only breed greater enmity against them. It
> > won't bring democracy because, after all, Dubya, Rice, Cheney, et al. don't
> > have a clue what democracy is. As for freedom, the only freedom guaranteed
> > by world domination is the freedom for the rulers to go wherever they want,
> > take whatever they want, and use what they take however they want. In other
> > words, the freedom to exploit at will.
> > Not too long ago, when asked by a congressperson if the plan was to colonize
> > Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld answered, "We covet nobody's land." You know what, I
> > believe him. I really do. They don't want the land-they just want the oil
> > that lies underneath it, the strategic position that military bases built on
> > the land would provide, and the potential labor source and markets the
> > people living there represent. No, they don't covet the land, they just want
> > to suck it dry.
> > I'm gonna' ask you all to step outside of yourselves for a minute. Out of
> > this room, out of this life, out of this country. Are you there? Now, place
> > yourself in Iraq. If you are a college student here, than now you're a
> > college student in Iraq. If you are a teacher or a nurse here, than you're
> > one there. If you work at a clothing store here, than you work at one in
> > Iraq now. And so on. You have a lover or maybe you don't. You live with your
> > parents or you live with friends. Maybe in the city, let's say . When you
> > finish your day's studies or work, you go out for coffee or a beer. You
> > discuss politics or you ignore them completely. For the most part you don't
> > get too involved in them, though, because they don't seem to mean much in
> > your daily life. Now, imagine your sleep interrupted by the sound of 500
> > pound bombs falling nearby, the smell of fire and smoke, the screams of
> > children piercing your sleep and the sound of sirens blaring as you run down
> > the stairs of your apartment building with only a minimal amount of clothing
> > on. After finding a bomb shelter and hiding there through the night, you
> > finally hear the all-clear siren and you head out into the light. Your world
> > is in ruins. This continues for weeks. Every night you hide in a cellar.
> > School and work are meaningless. You wonder how your friends in the
> > countryside are doing. Then, one day the foreign soldiers arrive, swaggering
> > through the city streets, breaking into houses and stores and dragging men
> > and boys out into the streets where they are pushed around and arrested,
> > hauled off to who knows where. All the while you are just trying to keep
> > your sanity. You help out in a hospital or a food shelf. You cry when you
> > see the children and the old ones as they wonder what happened to their
> > world. Already so many of them have seen their cousins taken ill because of
> > hunger caused by US sanctions and now this. Some of your friends are angry,
> > most are resigned. None are happy.
> > WAR! The rulers of this country have chosen violence solely because they can
> > use it and get away with it. They have chosen violence because they do not
> > seem to have the intelligence or the will to try something less harmful.
> > They have chosen violence because what the rulers of this country and the
> > money that backs them want is inherently unjust and greedy and can only be
> > obtained through the force of excessive violence. This is the violence of
> > imperial war. This is what I oppose.
> > I can't repeat it often enough-this war is about global domination. It is
> > not about freedom for Iraq or a future of peace and justice free of the
> > threat of war. It's not about when to go to war or whether Saddam should be
> > killed. It is about global domination, starting with Iraq, and those who are
> > calling for it know no shame.
> > And although the rulers in DC would like to convince and cajole the UN and
> > other of their ilk in other countries of the world to go along with their
> > plan, they don't really care if they don't. They would also like to convince
> > those men and women we elect to represent us to go along, too, but they
> > don't really care if they don't. Even if they do, that still does not make
> > this war right. It only means that these people have received their thirty
> > pieces of silver. When all is said and done, this war is still primarily
> > about killing, Indeed, it is about killing when several other options exist.
> > This is why this war is still wrong and unjust. The cooperation of Congress
> > and the UN Security Council only means that they too will have the blood of
> > innocents on their hands.
> > If we fail to prevent this war, then we must work even harder to end it once
> > it begins. Even if the warmakers get their man and kill Hussein, this war is
> > wrong. There is no morality in one group of mass murderers killing another
> > mass murderer. Especially when, if the killers in DC are telling the truth,
> > the defeat and occupation of Iraq may be just the beginning of a war without
> > end that would move its savagery and destruction to Iran, Korea, and even
> > China. This isn't the plan of a sane group of individuals. A boring group of
> > individuals, yes. A drab group of individuals, too. But calling them sane
> > requires a particular definition of the word that allows for planned mass
> > murder in the pursuit of power and money. This is why I consider their plans
> > to be psychopathic madness.
> > WAIT! There is hope. And that hope lies with those of us who oppose this
> > war. It is essential that everyone who does not want to see this war begin
> > get into the streets in their hometowns and in DC and San Francisco. Go to
> > your classrooms and your churches. Your workplaces. Your hangouts. Get
> > people to think seriously about this horror perpetrated in their names. Get
> > them to join you. If you know folks in the military, talk with them about
> > what they could be doing. Let them know there is a choice. Nobody has to
> > fight. Structures exist to get them to a safe place. Remind them that Dubya
> > never went to any war. Nor did Cheney or Rumsfeld or a good number of the
> > folks who want them to go fight for oil profits. Get people together and,
> > then make as much noise as you can. Be willing to risk arrest, your studies
> > and your job. Whatever you think this effort is worth. Let me repeat myself.
> > If they start this war despite our protests, it's even more important to
> > protest. Indeed, we should step our protest up. We can't do that you say?
> > After all, we need to support our troops. Of course we do. But we need to
> > support them as human beings, not as war machines. We need to support them
> > in their lives as our friends, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, and
> > partners, not as killers for the empire. In short we need to bring them
> > home.
> > Of course, our struggle will not be easy. At times, we will want to quit. At
> > times we will question the point of our resistance. But we must never quit.
> > No! We must raise our level of opposition to a greater level then. Sometimes
> > we will offend some folks, maybe even our family or friends. Sometimes we
> > will be verbally abused or physically assaulted. We must not, no, can not,
> > give in. More than that day twelve years ago, more than the 1960s, in fact,
> > I would endeavor to say more than ever before, the future of the planet
> > depends on us not giving in. Like the great fighter for the liberation of
> > black people in this country from slavery , Frederick Douglas, said, in a
> > manner so eloquent it bears repeating over and over: If there is no
> > struggle, there is not progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, yet
> > deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.
> > They want rain without the thunder and lightning. They want the ocean
> > without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one;
> > or it may be a physical one; or it may be both mental and physical; but it
> > must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. Remember
> > Douglass' words. Remember them and commit yourself to the struggle we are
> > engaged in. Our children, those who live today and those you will have in
> > the future, are counting on us.
> > ---------
> > Ron Jacobs lives in Burlington, VT. He can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org
-- Ted Morgan Department of Political Science Lehigh University Maginnes Hall #9 Bethlehem, PA 18015 Phone: (610) 758-3345 Fax: (610) 758-6554
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Nov 09 2002 - 23:06:54 EST