The Politics of Lesser Evilism
The Politics of Lesser Evilism
---------------------SIDE BAR------------------------------
Finals: Lesser Evilism 101
Part I.
Which President put forth a national minimum incomes plan?
Which President proposed a comprehensive national health insurance plan?
Which President signed the law creating OSHA?
Which President signed the law creating the EPA?
Who was President when the Roe vs. Wade case was decided?
Answer:
Believe it or not, that President was Nixon.
Part II.
Which President bombed Iraq weekly and starved Iraqis slowly for a period of 8 years?
Which President rolled back civil liberties by making it illegal to aid groups in other countires that were considered 'terrorist' according to the CIA?
Which President ended 'welfare as we know it'?
Which President sat on ergonomics improvements for 8 years, as well as on improved standards for drinking water?
Which President greatly expanded 'free trade' agreements that are disastrous for workers and the environment in the US and other countries?
Which President let striker-replacement legislation die in Congress?
Answer:
Believe it! That President was Clinton.
---------------------SIDE BAR------------------------------
Lately, many on the left have been barraged by the apocalyptic slogan, "Anyone but Bush!" Many a Democrat (sic!) seems willing to acknowledge that the likely presidential contender from the Democratic Party (DP) will be a direful option, but somehow better than the current Command-in-Thief. One might ponder: if the strategy if the DP is to vote in any Democrat and not fight for a progressive agenda, to attach not just just Bush, but also any progressive candidate (i.e., the Greens), how is this going to solve any of the real issues that affect our lives. If this is the only choice and the only strategy, then perhaps we should just admit it: there is no democracy in these United States.
There is, of course, more than a choice between just Tweedle Dumber and Tweedle Dumberer. Not only are there third-party candidates, but one may also chose not to participate in the charade: i.e., not to vote. In fact, many polls over the years have shown that choosing not to vote is done for precisely the very reason that the people do not see a viable candidate. In the same vein, many leftists refuse to vote in someone who they are certain will screw the workers.
There are many problems with the American electoral process. One major problem is the fact that so many progressives become deluded into participating in the "democratic" circus. Their energies thereby become diluted from the struggles at hand. This serves as a warning that the period ahead may prove to be a low point in activism as more and more people are drawn deeper and deeper into the electoral process.
What many progressives fail to comprehend (although acknowledge to a degree) is the complicity of the DP in the right-wing assault domestically and abroad. Many a politician in the DP can and should be held in contempt for every anti-worker legislation and action on the part of the government over the past 20-odd years - from Reagan's attack on airline pilots through Clinton's welfare reforms to the current administration's proto-fascist policies. The Democrats have been complicit in it all. Not to mention, the complicity of the DP in wars throughout the world. Again, we see this continuum of complicity from Reagan through Clinton to the present.
The fact of the matter is that the two parties are equitable. They do not represent the people and they definitely do not represent the workers. They do, however, represent the wealthy, the capitalists, the bosses, the bourgeoisie - whatever you want to call them. The funny thing is that everyone seems to know this, but still believe that somehow these politicians are interested in 'us' - in the 'we, the People.' By supporting the duopoly of power, by voting for a Democrat, one merely ends up strengthening the resolve of the politicians in either party to continue to pursue 'their' interests against 'ours.'
Real power, however, lies with us, the People, the working peoples of this nation. It matters not whether the person occupying the White House is Bush or Kerry. Either one will pursue policies that we will not agree with. Real progressive change only occurs when the people take to the streets, demonstrate, and if, need be, revolt. The strategy of putting one's faith in the electoral process is one that has kept the left back for too many years. If we really want to develop a society that approaches the goals and ideas reflected in such documents as the Constitution or even the Bible, then we, the People, have to take the power of decision-making back into our own hands and stop handing it over to those who do not represent us, our interests, or our values.
---------------------SIDE BAR------------------------------
Finals: Lesser Evilism 101
Part I.
Which President put forth a national minimum incomes plan?
Which President proposed a comprehensive national health insurance plan?
Which President signed the law creating OSHA?
Which President signed the law creating the EPA?
Who was President when the Roe vs. Wade case was decided?
Answer:
Believe it or not, that President was Nixon.
Part II.
Which President bombed Iraq weekly and starved Iraqis slowly for a period of 8 years?
Which President rolled back civil liberties by making it illegal to aid groups in other countires that were considered 'terrorist' according to the CIA?
Which President ended 'welfare as we know it'?
Which President sat on ergonomics improvements for 8 years, as well as on improved standards for drinking water?
Which President greatly expanded 'free trade' agreements that are disastrous for workers and the environment in the US and other countries?
Which President let striker-replacement legislation die in Congress?
Answer:
Believe it! That President was Clinton.
---------------------SIDE BAR------------------------------
Lately, many on the left have been barraged by the apocalyptic slogan, "Anyone but Bush!" Many a Democrat (sic!) seems willing to acknowledge that the likely presidential contender from the Democratic Party (DP) will be a direful option, but somehow better than the current Command-in-Thief. One might ponder: if the strategy if the DP is to vote in any Democrat and not fight for a progressive agenda, to attach not just just Bush, but also any progressive candidate (i.e., the Greens), how is this going to solve any of the real issues that affect our lives. If this is the only choice and the only strategy, then perhaps we should just admit it: there is no democracy in these United States.
There is, of course, more than a choice between just Tweedle Dumber and Tweedle Dumberer. Not only are there third-party candidates, but one may also chose not to participate in the charade: i.e., not to vote. In fact, many polls over the years have shown that choosing not to vote is done for precisely the very reason that the people do not see a viable candidate. In the same vein, many leftists refuse to vote in someone who they are certain will screw the workers.
There are many problems with the American electoral process. One major problem is the fact that so many progressives become deluded into participating in the "democratic" circus. Their energies thereby become diluted from the struggles at hand. This serves as a warning that the period ahead may prove to be a low point in activism as more and more people are drawn deeper and deeper into the electoral process.
What many progressives fail to comprehend (although acknowledge to a degree) is the complicity of the DP in the right-wing assault domestically and abroad. Many a politician in the DP can and should be held in contempt for every anti-worker legislation and action on the part of the government over the past 20-odd years - from Reagan's attack on airline pilots through Clinton's welfare reforms to the current administration's proto-fascist policies. The Democrats have been complicit in it all. Not to mention, the complicity of the DP in wars throughout the world. Again, we see this continuum of complicity from Reagan through Clinton to the present.
The fact of the matter is that the two parties are equitable. They do not represent the people and they definitely do not represent the workers. They do, however, represent the wealthy, the capitalists, the bosses, the bourgeoisie - whatever you want to call them. The funny thing is that everyone seems to know this, but still believe that somehow these politicians are interested in 'us' - in the 'we, the People.' By supporting the duopoly of power, by voting for a Democrat, one merely ends up strengthening the resolve of the politicians in either party to continue to pursue 'their' interests against 'ours.'
Real power, however, lies with us, the People, the working peoples of this nation. It matters not whether the person occupying the White House is Bush or Kerry. Either one will pursue policies that we will not agree with. Real progressive change only occurs when the people take to the streets, demonstrate, and if, need be, revolt. The strategy of putting one's faith in the electoral process is one that has kept the left back for too many years. If we really want to develop a society that approaches the goals and ideas reflected in such documents as the Constitution or even the Bible, then we, the People, have to take the power of decision-making back into our own hands and stop handing it over to those who do not represent us, our interests, or our values.
Comments
Post a Comment