You are NOT on the DirtyGreek.Org homepage. Please CLICK HERE to go there.
I have to take a deep breath before I post this, because it's really difficult.
... BREATHE ...
Ok, here goes. If you don't mind thinking rationally for a second, go read Stephen Gowans' most recent post over at Press Action. Gowans makes a very important but very frightening point... that Kerry probably isn't much better than Bush if you don't like U.S. imperialism. Now, I've said this before, but reading it in the way Gowans says it makes it seem even worse.Let's run down the list of things Kerry thinks are pretty cool. Targeted assassinations. Israeli ethnic cleansing. Denying Palestinians a right to return to their homes. The building of illegal settlements in occupied territory. Territorial expansion through military conquest. A bigger army. Military supremacy. The unilateral use of force. The pre-emptive use of force. The continued occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. The bold, muscular exercise of US power.
Oh, but here's how Kerry's different. He thinks the occupation of Iraq should be a NATO operation. Under US command. I guess that is different. And, as we all saw today, Kerry has no problem with murdering people, then coming back and complaining about the way in which they were murdered. Now, don't get me wrong - I'd much rather have John Kerry as President than Bush, simply because he seems to see more than just black and white (a.k.a. "with us or against us"), he isn't a religious zealout, and he is at least good at pretending he cares for the environment. Oh, and he isn't an idiot. However, that's about it.
I mean, he opposes same-sex marriage, he was for the Iraq war, he DOES flip-flop alot, though not as bad as his counterpart. He's certainly not going to change anything about the concentration of power in the hands of the few. He might sign some laws that try to fix it, but you're not going to see any real change under a major-party candidate any time soon. The major-party candidates who seem to actually be trying to make a difference (read: Kucinich) have no chance of being chosen to run, and the third-party candidates who could do some real damage to the elite system of assholes who run this country (read: Nader) have no chance of winning, even if they can make it onto the ballot in every state.
However, I think that Gowans makes a dangerous conclusion at the end of his post.Bush is dangerous.
Right.
Don't vote for Bush.
Couldn't agree more.
Be realistic.
Good point. We should realistically acknowledge that Kerry isn't going to be any better than Bush, much as we might wish him to be. Realistically speaking, the only option is to vote for neither. That's fine and good for him, but me, I'm going to try my best to get Bush out of office, even if it means voting for a rich guy who isn't going to make any real changes. After all, like Howard Zinn said the other night,For like five seconds, be willing to put your principles aside... and yes, we want to get rid of Bush, number 1 priority... The only reason I would vote for Kerry is to finally have a little ledge to stand on. If Kerry is elected, we will have a tiny ledge to stand on, whereas with Bush, there is nothing to stand on... Presidents can be moved by their constituencies. Folks - if you want to begin to cause a change in this country, the first thing you need to do is get Bush out. I'm not sure if Gowans is saying we shouldn't vote at all, or whether he's saying that we should vote for a third-party candidate. However, if it's the former, I hope he realizes what he's saying. I know Kerry sucks. I'm going to have a really hard time pulling the proverbial lever this November. Honestly, I don't even know for sure that I will vote for Kerry. If I don't, though, I'm going to at least vote. Don't let your voice go unheard. I understand that it's difficult to either vote for the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right or the guy who wants to change the country but doesn't stand a snowball's chance.
But for the sake of your country, at least vote. Ok?
|
