REPENT, SINNERS
Democrats have recently shown an interest in repentantnadervoter.com, which reposts an article I saw in the Los Angeles Times... its thesis: "it's time to repent, because Bush is so bad." Its main supporting argument:
"But as time has passed, it is clear to us--as people who voted for you--that your campaign was a mistake, and it's time for us to switch from being "unrepentant" Nader voters to being "repentant" ones.
Why? Tweedle dee is still tweedle dee, but tweedle dum has turned into a global tyrant."
Let's examine the assumptions implicit in this argument:
1) Nader can be blamed for Gore's defeat. Uh, no. Gore slit his own throat by refusing to make any promises to placate the Left while at the same time the Gore campaign conspired with the Bush campaign to keep Nader out of the Presidential debates.
2) Tweedle dee wasn't (and won't be) a "global tyrant"?
The Clinton Administration's big achievements: NAFTA, scotching single-payer, the Welfare Bill, Goals 2000, bombing Serbia for a few months (and all for nothing!), the brutal embargo on Iraq (for which Madeleine Albright declared the preventable deaths of hundreds of thousands of children as "worth it"), a decade of "prosperity" that helped almost entirely the top 10% of income-earners... all within the purview of the expanding military-industrial-prison complex and neoliberal economic policies.
Now, sure, the Bush Administration has been extremely gauche in its pursuit of the elite's economic objectives. But who's to say what a President Gore would have done? Here, exaggerating things a bit, is therealdifference.com's comparison of the Democrat and Republican positions.
In light of all this, I can see why people would want to vote Democrat in the next election. The Demopublicans are playing a "good cop/bad cop" game with the American voters -- the cop lovers can vote for the Republican bad cop and the cop haters can choose the friendly "good cop" because he's not as bad as the "bad cop," but the "good cop" then gets the right to be a more effective "bad cop" than the "bad cop" ever hoped to be. It is a testament to the immaturity of the American electorate that it falls for this nonsense. Under these conditions, though, mature voters should refuse to play along, and do at least something to build the Green Party this year. Is there a better alternative?
Democrats have recently shown an interest in repentantnadervoter.com, which reposts an article I saw in the Los Angeles Times... its thesis: "it's time to repent, because Bush is so bad." Its main supporting argument:
"But as time has passed, it is clear to us--as people who voted for you--that your campaign was a mistake, and it's time for us to switch from being "unrepentant" Nader voters to being "repentant" ones.
Why? Tweedle dee is still tweedle dee, but tweedle dum has turned into a global tyrant."
Let's examine the assumptions implicit in this argument:
1) Nader can be blamed for Gore's defeat. Uh, no. Gore slit his own throat by refusing to make any promises to placate the Left while at the same time the Gore campaign conspired with the Bush campaign to keep Nader out of the Presidential debates.
2) Tweedle dee wasn't (and won't be) a "global tyrant"?
The Clinton Administration's big achievements: NAFTA, scotching single-payer, the Welfare Bill, Goals 2000, bombing Serbia for a few months (and all for nothing!), the brutal embargo on Iraq (for which Madeleine Albright declared the preventable deaths of hundreds of thousands of children as "worth it"), a decade of "prosperity" that helped almost entirely the top 10% of income-earners... all within the purview of the expanding military-industrial-prison complex and neoliberal economic policies.
Now, sure, the Bush Administration has been extremely gauche in its pursuit of the elite's economic objectives. But who's to say what a President Gore would have done? Here, exaggerating things a bit, is therealdifference.com's comparison of the Democrat and Republican positions.
In light of all this, I can see why people would want to vote Democrat in the next election. The Demopublicans are playing a "good cop/bad cop" game with the American voters -- the cop lovers can vote for the Republican bad cop and the cop haters can choose the friendly "good cop" because he's not as bad as the "bad cop," but the "good cop" then gets the right to be a more effective "bad cop" than the "bad cop" ever hoped to be. It is a testament to the immaturity of the American electorate that it falls for this nonsense. Under these conditions, though, mature voters should refuse to play along, and do at least something to build the Green Party this year. Is there a better alternative?
posted by Samuel at 8:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home