from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
So it seems that the die is cast; the next president of the United States will be George W Bush or John F Kerry. When the choice is presented in these stark terms, it’s a no-brainer for anyone to the left of Genghis Khan. All hail President Kerry! However, that’s exactly the problem. The only good thing about John Kerry is not what he is but what he isn’t. He isn’t George W. Bush.
The Democrats have gone, so we’re told, for “electability”. Once again they’ve chosen a middle-aged white man to represent them in a presidential election. And not just any old white man. Kerry happens to be a very rich white man both by birth and marriage. As a former Yalee and a Skull and Boner, the senator comes from the same blue-blood set as Bush. Of course there’s nothing wrong with this as such; after all a white man greets me every day when I look in the mirror. The problem is that there’s nothing in Kerry’s background to elicit any excitement. His election will not be announced by the smashing of any glass ceilings. He won’t be the first (insert marginalised group here) president.
His background isn’t his fault but his policies certainly are. Of the nine democratic candidates, Kerry is the most right-wing. He makes Dick Gephardt look like a dangerous radical. Kerry is pro-NAFTA, pro-PATRIOT Act and pro-Iraq war. He’s part of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the Clintonite wing of the party which took over in the 1980s. He and his fellow travellers in the DLC don’t believe in mobilising the poor and the downtrodden to come out and vote. For them it’s best to just be Republican Lite and hope that enough “swing voters” will go Democrat because they’re scared of John Ashcroft.
Bushies are bang on target when they mock Kerry for attacking “special interests”. The senator is playing the same corrupt game as the president – selling influence for money. It just happens that Dubya is better at this game than Kerry. Should he win the White House, Kerry will reward his big campaign contributors and to hell with the common good.
Why then should anybody vote for Kerry? Isn’t it better to have the real thing? Not quite. A choice between right and extreme right is still a choice. In some key areas having Kerry, or indeed any Democrat, in the White House will make a difference. In particular, a change of president could be vital in two areas: foreign policy and abortion.
When it comes to foreign policy Kerry is all at sea. As I’ve discussed in a previous blog, Kerry voted for war on the basis that he believed that Saddam was a threat to the US. This makes him either a liar or a fool. It certainly makes him easy meat for Bush. Any attack by Kerry on Bush about Iraq will fall flat because the man form Mass is guilty by association. He had the chance to take a stand in 2002 and he bottled it.
Nevertheless there is still a world of difference between starting a war (as Bush did) and not trying to stop a war (as Kerry did). For all that Kerry’s vote for war was despicable, had he been president the war would never have happened. If Bush gets another four years then more war seems almost certain. Such is his administration’s grandiose ambitions and bullying posture that conflict with Syria, Iran or North Korea looks inevitable.
If Kerry were elected then the prospects of further aggressive wars would diminish considerably. The world would be a much safer place if Cheney, Wolfowitz et al were removed from power and sent to join their friends in the hysterical neocon think-tanks. Who knows, with Rumsfeld gone from the Pentagon, the US might start to talk to its allies rather than insult them.
On the domestic front the future of legal abortion might rest on the result of November’s election. The right, having done everything to undercut Roe .v. Wade in the past twenty years, stands on the brink of final victory. A change in the personnel of the Supreme Court could lead to an end to a woman’s right to choose. If Bush gets a second term it’s unthinkable that he would nominate anyone but a strong pro-lifer to the bench. Likewise if Kerry wins it seems certain that he would nominate a pro-choice judge.
As I said, there’s nothing about Kerry’s background or policies which fills me with enthusiasm. All I can say is that, under his watch, America would drift rightwards a little slower.
The Democrats have gone, so we’re told, for “electability”. Once again they’ve chosen a middle-aged white man to represent them in a presidential election. And not just any old white man. Kerry happens to be a very rich white man both by birth and marriage. As a former Yalee and a Skull and Boner, the senator comes from the same blue-blood set as Bush. Of course there’s nothing wrong with this as such; after all a white man greets me every day when I look in the mirror. The problem is that there’s nothing in Kerry’s background to elicit any excitement. His election will not be announced by the smashing of any glass ceilings. He won’t be the first (insert marginalised group here) president.
His background isn’t his fault but his policies certainly are. Of the nine democratic candidates, Kerry is the most right-wing. He makes Dick Gephardt look like a dangerous radical. Kerry is pro-NAFTA, pro-PATRIOT Act and pro-Iraq war. He’s part of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the Clintonite wing of the party which took over in the 1980s. He and his fellow travellers in the DLC don’t believe in mobilising the poor and the downtrodden to come out and vote. For them it’s best to just be Republican Lite and hope that enough “swing voters” will go Democrat because they’re scared of John Ashcroft.
Bushies are bang on target when they mock Kerry for attacking “special interests”. The senator is playing the same corrupt game as the president – selling influence for money. It just happens that Dubya is better at this game than Kerry. Should he win the White House, Kerry will reward his big campaign contributors and to hell with the common good.
Why then should anybody vote for Kerry? Isn’t it better to have the real thing? Not quite. A choice between right and extreme right is still a choice. In some key areas having Kerry, or indeed any Democrat, in the White House will make a difference. In particular, a change of president could be vital in two areas: foreign policy and abortion.
When it comes to foreign policy Kerry is all at sea. As I’ve discussed in a previous blog, Kerry voted for war on the basis that he believed that Saddam was a threat to the US. This makes him either a liar or a fool. It certainly makes him easy meat for Bush. Any attack by Kerry on Bush about Iraq will fall flat because the man form Mass is guilty by association. He had the chance to take a stand in 2002 and he bottled it.
Nevertheless there is still a world of difference between starting a war (as Bush did) and not trying to stop a war (as Kerry did). For all that Kerry’s vote for war was despicable, had he been president the war would never have happened. If Bush gets another four years then more war seems almost certain. Such is his administration’s grandiose ambitions and bullying posture that conflict with Syria, Iran or North Korea looks inevitable.
If Kerry were elected then the prospects of further aggressive wars would diminish considerably. The world would be a much safer place if Cheney, Wolfowitz et al were removed from power and sent to join their friends in the hysterical neocon think-tanks. Who knows, with Rumsfeld gone from the Pentagon, the US might start to talk to its allies rather than insult them.
On the domestic front the future of legal abortion might rest on the result of November’s election. The right, having done everything to undercut Roe .v. Wade in the past twenty years, stands on the brink of final victory. A change in the personnel of the Supreme Court could lead to an end to a woman’s right to choose. If Bush gets a second term it’s unthinkable that he would nominate anyone but a strong pro-lifer to the bench. Likewise if Kerry wins it seems certain that he would nominate a pro-choice judge.
As I said, there’s nothing about Kerry’s background or policies which fills me with enthusiasm. All I can say is that, under his watch, America would drift rightwards a little slower.