Thursday, September 11, 2003
Dean versus Kucinich
I had an interesting exchange with Dan, who posts on Daily Kos. I wrote him an email on Kucinich. I'll let the exchange speak for himself. I do intend to write him back again.
Dan,
I've enjoyed your posts on Daily Kos, but I have to disagree with you on your assumptions on Kucinich, and, for that matter, the assumptions of the Socialist Worker online.
I will say that Kucinich never for once overestimated his chances for winning.
As hard as he is working to win, though, is testament to his openness to winning,
if you catch my drift. He certainly realized the odds were great when he started, and knows, I am sure, how great the odds continue to be. Did you watch the debate last night?
Kucinich is clever in how he words his "attacks" on the other nominees, in that he carefully points out differences in their pre-war stances, for example. This is a man running to win, not to elect a democrat who supported the war.
Because he stated in the Cleveland newspaper that he wants his candidacy to be a "big tent" for those alienated from the party, doesn't mean that he doesn't want to include, within that big tent, others who support his proposed policies. In other words, he doesn't want his tent to be a small tent for the alienated, but a big tent for everyone.
There is an awful lot of assumption in the socialist worker party article. By-the-way, I consider myself a Lefty with a capital "L". Perhaps though, according to your unexpressed criteria, I delude myself. I consider myself a socialist in that I want to see limits on the amount a person may earn as profit. I want to see the basic necessities of life guarunteed to every individual, as long as they contribute in some way, if they are capable of contributing, and I believe in the public ownership of those services necessary for life.
There is so much more to be said as far as beliefs and socialism. Suffice it to say that Mr. Kucinich more than meets my criteria, in this day and time, as a candidate who truly cares about people, and not profits.
Elizabeth Cook
P.S. I'll post this on Daily Kos as well. Thanks for your continuing hard work in regime change.
And Dan's reply:
Hi!
Nice to meet you...I saw your reply in Kos, and while I agree in large part, and I agree with the general assessment of Kucinich as the most progressive candidate, here's where I stand in regards to "Big L" lefty-ism and electoral politics in general:
1) If a Lefty does choose to take part in the two-party electoral game, it should be with specific strategic and tactical goals aimed at achieving specific progress in terms of the overall Lefty political outlook.
2) No Democrat will EVER meet the criteria set by those standards -- they simply cannot do it and remain in the Democratic party.
3) Therefore, when choosing a Democratic (or Green, or Libertarian, or Independent) candidate to support, a Big L lefty must look at not what platform they put forward (Kucinich's is by far the best in terms of progressive politics, no question), but instead must look at who, how, and why that particular candidate is appealing to people, and how many of them...
4) Therefore, based on cold political/strategic calculation, this Big L lefty chooses to support Dean, not because of the man, but because of the campaign. Not because of the planks in the platform, but because of the makeup and dynamism of the populist/popular campaign.
Obviously, if Kucinich were running a similarly successful campaign, I would gladly support him over Dean. Not-so-obviously, if Kerry, or Gephardt, or Graham, or even Lieberman were running a similar campaign, I would support them!
Here's why -- when dealing with established political party politics, we must understand that the planks are essentially meaningless -- Bush, Clinton, Bush the elder, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and so on have taught us that campaign planks and platforms are empty promises made for purposes of publicity, nothing more...not out of total mendacity, mind you, but as a result of the basic fact that campaign promises NEVER survive the reality of...ahem...bourgeois liberal representative systems and their inherent design - to promise the sky and deliver only more pain to the hoodwinked supporters in the lower classes...sorry about that...channeling Engels again...
When popular reform movements grow out of material political reality - anti-death penalty, gun control, civil rights, equal rights, abortion rights, and so on - Big L leftists must and do take part, in coalition or united front, with the various liberal, identity/issue, progressive groups that also fight for these reforms...while still recognizing that the reform itself will not change the inherent nature of the capitalist system, nor will the reform bring about real, long-lasting, structural change to our society and its profits based, stealing labor based, inequality and disinformation based mechanisms...
I view political campaigns the same way. I supported Nader in 2000, not because of Nader, but because of the nature of his campaign in its populist, "energize the so-far uninvolved" character.
Likewise, for the moment, and for the same reason, I support Dean over Kucinich...
Kucinich's policy ideas are much much better, but Dean is running a broad based campaign that is energizing a lot of people that were previously uninvolved.
It's a no-lose situation in several senses:
If Dean wins on that wave of populist support, and proceeds to hold true to his promises to that populist base and act on his statements and planks...then an era of progressive reform will ensue that will help, via success and progress, energize more of the working class than today...and the Left can only benefit.
On the other hand, if Dean wins on that base of support and proceeds to do what every other recent populist has done (betray that base) then those who were activated and energized by that campaign will be angry. Very angry....and they will look for an outlet to vent that anger. As a big L leftist WHO SUPPORTED THAT CAMPAIGN ALONGSIDE THEM, I (or my party) has a lot of "struggle credibility" if you will...and can say "look, I am pissed too, I helped get this guy elected even though my party's politics and his were so different, and now, he met my worst expectations, and betrayed us all, why don't you work with US and make a REAL progressive populist party that will REALLY change things!"
Finally, if Dean LOSES, then working alongside his populist base will only benefit "Big L" parties that do so, for similar "struggle credibility" reasons...
Cynical and calculating perhaps...but there it is.
Again, Kucinich says more of the right things, but his campaign is not a "reformist progressive populist" campaign...Dean is not a progressive populist, but his campaign IS...and therein lies the difference.
Frankly, neither one, if elected, will follow through on the promises and planks they are laying out - they can't.
Not unless there is a revolution...and campaigns don't make revolutions.
Big L lefties must choose campaigns to support based on how they benefit the growth in self-consciousness in the working classes, and how they build the potential for real revolutionary change, not in the specifics of the either empty, or unimplementable-within-the-current-system promises.
Peace, and thanks for your mail!
Cheers
Dan
Dan,
I've enjoyed your posts on Daily Kos, but I have to disagree with you on your assumptions on Kucinich, and, for that matter, the assumptions of the Socialist Worker online.
I will say that Kucinich never for once overestimated
As hard as he is working to win, though, is testament to his openness to winning,
if you catch my drift. He certainly realized the odds were great when he started, and knows, I am sure, how great the odds continue to be. Did you watch the debate last night?
Kucinich is clever in how he words his "attacks" on the other nominees, in that he carefully points out differences in their pre-war stances, for example. This is a man running to win, not to elect a democrat who supported the war.
Because he stated in the Cleveland newspaper that he wants his candidacy to be a "big tent" for those alienated from the party, doesn't mean that he doesn't want to include, within that big tent, others who support his proposed policies. In other words, he doesn't want his tent to be a small tent for the alienated, but a big tent for everyone.
There is an awful lot of assumption in the socialist worker party article. By-the-way, I consider myself a Lefty with a capital "L". Perhaps though, according to your unexpressed criteria, I delude myself. I consider myself a socialist in that I want to see limits on the amount a person may earn as profit. I want to see the basic necessities of life guarunteed to every individual, as long as they contribute in some way, if they are capable of contributing, and I believe in the public ownership of those services necessary for life.
There is so much more to be said as far as beliefs and socialism. Suffice it to say that Mr. Kucinich more than meets my criteria, in this day and time, as a candidate who truly cares about people, and not profits.
Elizabeth Cook
P.S. I'll post this on Daily Kos as well. Thanks for your continuing hard work in regime change.
And Dan's reply:
Hi!
Nice to meet you...I saw your reply in Kos, and while I agree in large part, and I agree with the general assessment of Kucinich as the most progressive candidate, here's where I stand in regards to "Big L" lefty-ism and electoral politics in general:
1) If a Lefty does choose to take part in the two-party electoral game, it should be with specific strategic and tactical goals aimed at achieving specific progress in terms of the overall Lefty political outlook.
2) No Democrat will EVER meet the criteria set by those standards -- they simply cannot do it and remain in the Democratic party.
3) Therefore, when choosing a Democratic (or Green, or Libertarian, or Independent) candidate to support, a Big L lefty must look at not what platform they put forward (Kucinich's is by far the best in terms of progressive politics, no question), but instead must look at who, how, and why that particular candidate is appealing to people, and how many of them...
4) Therefore, based on cold political/strategic calculation, this Big L lefty chooses to support Dean, not because of the man, but because of the campaign. Not because of the planks in the platform, but because of the makeup and dynamism of the populist/popular campaign.
Obviously, if Kucinich were running a similarly successful campaign, I would gladly support him over Dean. Not-so-obviously, if Kerry, or Gephardt, or Graham, or even Lieberman were running a similar campaign, I would support them!
Here's why -- when dealing with established political party politics, we must understand that the planks are essentially meaningless -- Bush, Clinton, Bush the elder, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and so on have taught us that campaign planks and platforms are empty promises made for purposes of publicity, nothing more...not out of total mendacity, mind you, but as a result of the basic fact that campaign promises NEVER survive the reality of...ahem...bourgeois liberal representative systems and their inherent design - to promise the sky and deliver only more pain to the hoodwinked supporters in the lower classes...sorry about that...channeling Engels again...
When popular reform movements grow out of material political reality - anti-death penalty, gun control, civil rights, equal rights, abortion rights, and so on - Big L leftists must and do take part, in coalition or united front, with the various liberal, identity/issue, progressive groups that also fight for these reforms...while still recognizing that the reform itself will not change the inherent nature of the capitalist system, nor will the reform bring about real, long-lasting, structural change to our society and its profits based, stealing labor based, inequality and disinformation based mechanisms...
I view political campaigns the same way. I supported Nader in 2000, not because of Nader, but because of the nature of his campaign in its populist, "energize the so-far uninvolved" character.
Likewise, for the moment, and for the same reason, I support Dean over Kucinich...
Kucinich's policy ideas are much much better, but Dean is running a broad based campaign that is energizing a lot of people that were previously uninvolved.
It's a no-lose situation in several senses:
If Dean wins on that wave of populist support, and proceeds to hold true to his promises to that populist base and act on his statements and planks...then an era of progressive reform will ensue that will help, via success and progress, energize more of the working class than today...and the Left can only benefit.
On the other hand, if Dean wins on that base of support and proceeds to do what every other recent populist has done (betray that base) then those who were activated and energized by that campaign will be angry. Very angry....and they will look for an outlet to vent that anger. As a big L leftist WHO SUPPORTED THAT CAMPAIGN ALONGSIDE THEM, I (or my party) has a lot of "struggle credibility" if you will...and can say "look, I am pissed too, I helped get this guy elected even though my party's politics and his were so different, and now, he met my worst expectations, and betrayed us all, why don't you work with US and make a REAL progressive populist party that will REALLY change things!"
Finally, if Dean LOSES, then working alongside his populist base will only benefit "Big L" parties that do so, for similar "struggle credibility" reasons...
Cynical and calculating perhaps...but there it is.
Again, Kucinich says more of the right things, but his campaign is not a "reformist progressive populist" campaign...Dean is not a progressive populist, but his campaign IS...and therein lies the difference.
Frankly, neither one, if elected, will follow through on the promises and planks they are laying out - they can't.
Not unless there is a revolution...and campaigns don't make revolutions.
Big L lefties must choose campaigns to support based on how they benefit the growth in self-consciousness in the working classes, and how they build the potential for real revolutionary change, not in the specifics of the either empty, or unimplementable-within-the-current-system promises.
Peace, and thanks for your mail!
Cheers
Dan
# posted by scorpiorising : 7:52 AM |
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
The WTO is insane.
The Sierra Club, is voicing concerns that the World Trade Organization (WTO) is proposing changes that could seriously undermine efforts to protect the environment and the interests of working families.
I would say this is a vast understatement.
· Under the services rules on "market access," US trading partners could challenge the right of a local government to restrict the size or location of a new residential or commercial development. States could be penalized for limiting the number of fishing licenses granted in coastal waters, the amount of waste dumped into a landfill, the amount of timber that can be logged from public lands, or the amount of water extracted from an aquifer. Even limits on energy production in wilderness areas could be challenged as illegal restrictions on "market access."
Clean Water at Risk
· New investor rules on "expropriation" could prevent governments from setting standards that protect the public if doing so harms a foreign company's profits. For instance, the Methanex Corporation of Canada used NAFTA's investor provisions to sue U.S. taxpayers for $1 billion after California phased out a hazardous gasoline additive, which the company helps to manufacture. Should Methanex prevail, the federal government would have to force California to reverse its ban or pay damages. Similar lawsuits are expected to grow if investor provisions are included in the WTO.
So, let me get this straight: a Canadian company that produces an additive that has been used in gasoline, recently sued California citizens, because California banned the additive because it was found to be hazardous? And the WTO wants to expand the power of trading partners over the self-rule of local governments, in effect, severly watering down their autonomy and ability to govern themselves, according to what they feel ought to be their priorities?
Has the WTO finally gone stark raving mad? The level of greed and megalomania within this organization is amazing to me. Regarding NAFTA, were some of its creators delusional? Did they bow to corporate pressures to ante-up the powers awarded multi-nationals?
And we wonder why Dennis Kucinich, presidential candidate, wants to cancel NAFTA and the WTO? The same Kucinich who is semi-regularly labeled something close to "insane" in the popular media, and posters on the Daily Kos (recently, someone there called him possibly "crazy as bat shit", though she agrees with his politics; go figure).
It is interesting to me to observe how someone like Kucinich is regularly misunderstood by many. Is it the mark of genius, to be so out of step, as to be seen ready for the funny farm? I guess his proposed Department of Peace really has them preparing papers for his admittance on the 3rd floor.
I suppose wanting peace, and a fair shake for workers and their families, and a clean environment, are really insane.
I would say this is a vast understatement.
· Under the services rules on "market access," US trading partners could challenge the right of a local government to restrict the size or location of a new residential or commercial development. States could be penalized for limiting the number of fishing licenses granted in coastal waters, the amount of waste dumped into a landfill, the amount of timber that can be logged from public lands, or the amount of water extracted from an aquifer. Even limits on energy production in wilderness areas could be challenged as illegal restrictions on "market access."
Clean Water at Risk
· New investor rules on "expropriation" could prevent governments from setting standards that protect the public if doing so harms a foreign company's profits. For instance, the Methanex Corporation of Canada used NAFTA's investor provisions to sue U.S. taxpayers for $1 billion after California phased out a hazardous gasoline additive, which the company helps to manufacture. Should Methanex prevail, the federal government would have to force California to reverse its ban or pay damages. Similar lawsuits are expected to grow if investor provisions are included in the WTO.
So, let me get this straight: a Canadian company that produces an additive that has been used in gasoline, recently sued California citizens, because California banned the additive because it was found to be hazardous? And the WTO wants to expand the power of trading partners over the self-rule of local governments, in effect, severly watering down their autonomy and ability to govern themselves, according to what they feel ought to be their priorities?
Has the WTO finally gone stark raving mad? The level of greed and megalomania within this organization is amazing to me. Regarding NAFTA, were some of its creators delusional? Did they bow to corporate pressures to ante-up the powers awarded multi-nationals?
And we wonder why Dennis Kucinich, presidential candidate, wants to cancel NAFTA and the WTO? The same Kucinich who is semi-regularly labeled something close to "insane" in the popular media, and posters on the Daily Kos (recently, someone there called him possibly "crazy as bat shit", though she agrees with his politics; go figure).
It is interesting to me to observe how someone like Kucinich is regularly misunderstood by many. Is it the mark of genius, to be so out of step, as to be seen ready for the funny farm? I guess his proposed Department of Peace really has them preparing papers for his admittance on the 3rd floor.
I suppose wanting peace, and a fair shake for workers and their families, and a clean environment, are really insane.
# posted by scorpiorising : 2:21 PM |
My letter to Salon.com
My letter today:
Mr. Andrew Sullivan, columnist for the London Times, is suggesting that President Bush, in his infinite wisdom,
has purposefully set up what one might call, a "final showdown" with terrorists.
He suggests Iraq is being used as a fly trap to lure terrorists within its borders, so that the military can "take 'em on".
Mr. Bush's "bring 'em on" statement should be understood within that context, according to Mr. Sullivan.
I have to award Mr. Sullivan for the most absurd and dangerous spin regarding this debacle in Iraq. Putting aside the obvious absurd notion that he appears to be assuming there is some kind of "fixed" number of terrorists, more dangerously, he appears to assume we will eventually have killed so many of them, terrorism will decrease in the world.
A childish notion at best, foregoing the awareness that in the Muslim world, terrorists are recruiting successfully everyday, what with the horror in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Afghanistan war in which we are losing ground because of the number of new recruits, and now a new front for Jihad, Iraq.
Mr. Sullivan and those of his ilk demonstrate a severely narrowed and skewed view of the world, where dead bodies of American soldiers is a sign that we are confronting and taking on the terrorists.
How many more American deaths, and Iraqi deaths for that matter, will it take to awaken the sense of shame that ought to be naturally inherent within those who created and supported this failed policy?
Mr. Andrew Sullivan, columnist for the London Times, is suggesting that President Bush, in his infinite wisdom,
has purposefully set up what one might call, a "final showdown" with terrorists.
He suggests Iraq is being used as a fly trap to lure terrorists within its borders, so that the military can "take 'em on".
Mr. Bush's "bring 'em on" statement should be understood within that context, according to Mr. Sullivan.
I have to award Mr. Sullivan for the most absurd and dangerous spin regarding this debacle in Iraq. Putting aside the obvious absurd notion that he appears to be assuming there is some kind of "fixed" number of terrorists, more dangerously, he appears to assume we will eventually have killed so many of them, terrorism will decrease in the world.
A childish notion at best, foregoing the awareness that in the Muslim world, terrorists are recruiting successfully everyday, what with the horror in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Afghanistan war in which we are losing ground because of the number of new recruits, and now a new front for Jihad, Iraq.
Mr. Sullivan and those of his ilk demonstrate a severely narrowed and skewed view of the world, where dead bodies of American soldiers is a sign that we are confronting and taking on the terrorists.
How many more American deaths, and Iraqi deaths for that matter, will it take to awaken the sense of shame that ought to be naturally inherent within those who created and supported this failed policy?
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:42 AM |
Tuesday, September 09, 2003
Blog been down.
My blog has been down since August 19, or somewhere thereabouts.
My, it took a long time for the blogger people to respond. I will be blogging again, for all those who missed me. The issues certainly haven't gone anywhere. Soon.
My, it took a long time for the blogger people to respond. I will be blogging again, for all those who missed me. The issues certainly haven't gone anywhere. Soon.
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:46 PM |
Links
- Google News
- HOME
- Contact Me
- WAR CASUALTIES(MY OTHER BLOG)
- BAGHDAD BURNING
- UNQUALIFIED OFFERINGS
- JUAN COLE*INFORMED COMMENT*
- BRAD DELONG
- TOMPAINE.COM
- THE DAILY HOWLER
- DISSENT MAGAZINE
- CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY
- BLAH3.COM
- BLACK SUNDAE
- WAMPUM
- ESCHATON
- ARMS AND THE MAN
- MILL ON LIBERTY
- GERMANY IN WORLD WAR 2
- VEILED 4 ALLAH
- BUSY, BUSY, BUSY
- UNENVIABLE SITUATION
- HOW TO SAVE THE WORLD
- MATTHEW GROSS
- WHISKEY BAR
- WAR AND PIECE
- DAILY KOS
- GREG PALAST
- BLACK COMMENTATOR
- SURPRISING PATTERN OF FLORIDA'S ELECTION RESULTS
- THE BRAD BLOG
- THE OPEN VOTING CONSORTIUM
- BLACK BOX VOTING
- THE FREE PRESS
- VOTERGATE.TV
- STOLEN ELECTION. AMERICA HIJACKED
- An examination of the Florida election
- blueflu.us
- U.S. Election Controversies and Irregularities
- MY DD
- SEEING THE FOREST
- THERE IS NO CRISIS
- VELVET REVOLUTION
- 02/02/2003 - 02/09/2003
- 02/09/2003 - 02/16/2003
- 02/16/2003 - 02/23/2003
- 02/23/2003 - 03/02/2003
- 03/02/2003 - 03/09/2003
- 03/09/2003 - 03/16/2003
- 03/16/2003 - 03/23/2003
- 03/23/2003 - 03/30/2003
- 03/30/2003 - 04/06/2003
- 04/06/2003 - 04/13/2003
- 04/13/2003 - 04/20/2003
- 04/20/2003 - 04/27/2003
- 04/27/2003 - 05/04/2003
- 05/04/2003 - 05/11/2003
- 05/11/2003 - 05/18/2003
- 05/18/2003 - 05/25/2003
- 05/25/2003 - 06/01/2003
- 06/01/2003 - 06/08/2003
- 06/08/2003 - 06/15/2003
- 06/15/2003 - 06/22/2003
- 06/22/2003 - 06/29/2003
- 06/29/2003 - 07/06/2003
- 07/06/2003 - 07/13/2003
- 07/13/2003 - 07/20/2003
- 07/20/2003 - 07/27/2003
- 07/27/2003 - 08/03/2003
- 08/03/2003 - 08/10/2003
- 08/10/2003 - 08/17/2003
- 08/17/2003 - 08/24/2003
- 09/07/2003 - 09/14/2003
- 09/14/2003 - 09/21/2003
- 09/21/2003 - 09/28/2003
- 09/28/2003 - 10/05/2003
- 10/05/2003 - 10/12/2003
- 10/12/2003 - 10/19/2003
- 10/19/2003 - 10/26/2003
- 10/26/2003 - 11/02/2003
- 11/02/2003 - 11/09/2003
- 11/09/2003 - 11/16/2003
- 11/16/2003 - 11/23/2003
- 11/23/2003 - 11/30/2003
- 11/30/2003 - 12/07/2003
- 12/14/2003 - 12/21/2003
- 01/11/2004 - 01/18/2004
- 01/18/2004 - 01/25/2004
- 01/25/2004 - 02/01/2004
- 02/01/2004 - 02/08/2004
- 02/08/2004 - 02/15/2004
- 02/22/2004 - 02/29/2004
- 05/23/2004 - 05/30/2004
- 09/26/2004 - 10/03/2004
- 10/03/2004 - 10/10/2004
- 10/10/2004 - 10/17/2004
- 10/17/2004 - 10/24/2004
- 10/24/2004 - 10/31/2004
- 10/31/2004 - 11/07/2004
- 11/07/2004 - 11/14/2004
- 11/14/2004 - 11/21/2004
- 11/21/2004 - 11/28/2004
- 11/28/2004 - 12/05/2004
- 12/05/2004 - 12/12/2004
- 12/19/2004 - 12/26/2004
- 12/26/2004 - 01/02/2005
- 01/02/2005 - 01/09/2005
- 01/09/2005 - 01/16/2005
- 01/23/2005 - 01/30/2005
- 01/30/2005 - 02/06/2005
- 02/06/2005 - 02/13/2005
- 02/13/2005 - 02/20/2005
- 02/20/2005 - 02/27/2005
- 02/27/2005 - 03/06/2005
- 03/06/2005 - 03/13/2005
- 03/13/2005 - 03/20/2005
- 03/20/2005 - 03/27/2005
- 03/27/2005 - 04/03/2005
- 04/03/2005 - 04/10/2005
- 04/24/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 06/05/2005 - 06/12/2005
- 06/26/2005 - 07/03/2005
- 07/31/2005 - 08/07/2005
- 08/07/2005 - 08/14/2005
